You don't know shit about Iraq

jaguar • Jun 12, 2004 2:41 am
Since I'm already waving the flamethrower around with abandon today:
From the daily kos
-----
Its about time that I sat down and told you this. I was hoping it wouldn't have to be me, but someone needed to finally do it. For quite some time now, you have been going off about what we "need" to do in Iraq. You have been telling us how "things are going" over there, and making suggestions and proclamations about what "we need to do" based on what you seem to believe is a wealth of knowledge about the situation.

Well, I'm here to finally tell you what you what no one else seems willing to say: you don't know shit about Iraq. In fact, you don't even know how much shit there is about Iraq that you don't know.

For starters, you don't speak Arabic. In fact, there's a pretty good chance you don't even know someone who speaks Arabic. Further, you probably don't even know what percentage of Iraqis speak Arabic. I know for damn certain that you don't speak Kurdish.

Second, you have never been to Iraq. You may have seen a few maps on TV, but you have never actually been there. There is even a reasonable chance that you could not identify Iraq on a blank map. Almost certainly you do not know which countries border Iraq, without looking at a map. Its very likely you have never met anyone from Iraq, even if you have seen a few on TV.

Third, you probably know fuck all about Islam. You don't know what the word means in Arabic. You don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam. You don't know which type of Islam is more common in the region or in the world. you don't known when Ramadan is. You don't know when Muslims pray. You don't know where Mecca and Medina are. you don't know why those two cities are so important in the religion. You don't know when Mohammad lived. You have never read the Koran. You probably have even read part of it. You don't know what is forbidden by Islam, or what is permitted. You have maybe one Muslim friend.

Fourth, you have no clue about the history of the region. You have never heard of the Ottoman empire. You don't know about regional politics and the nineteenth century. You don't know what the British did in Iraq. You don't know about WWI in the region. You don't know when Iraq became independent. You don't know when Saddam Hussein took power. Even though you were alive the entire time, you don't know when the Iran-Iraq war took place. Before the war started, you only knew the same of one city in Iraq--Baghdad.

Fifth, you have no fucking idea what our military capability actually is. you couldn't even guess within 300,000 troops how many are available for active duty. You have no idea how many are deployed in different parts of the world. You don't know the location of more than three military bases. You don't know what type of weaponry, armor and vehicle the military currently uses. You don't even know the order of ranks among enlisted men in the Marines. Hell, you don't know if the Marines are part of the Army or if they are a separate branch of the armed services. You don't know what the military budget is. You don't know what congressional committees oversee military activities. You don't know how long a standard tour of duty lasts. You don't know the demographic composition of the armed forces.

Sixth, you don't know anything about the so-called "Iraqi resistance." You don't know what their motives are. You don't know what their goals are. you don't know how many of them there are. You don't know what groups they are affiliated with. You don't know how many are native Iraqis, how many are not from Iraq, or how many used to be part of Saddam's regime. You don't know what kind of tactics they use. You don't know how much public support they have. You don't know if they are one group or several groups. You don't know their political or religious beliefs. You don't know if they are losing strength or gaining strength.

Seventh, you don't have the slightest clue about the structure of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. You don't know where they operate from. You don't know where their funding comes from. You don't know their plans. You don't know their strengths or weaknesses. You don't know which organizations operate out of which countries. you don't know what their goals are. You don't know where they draw their recruits from. You don't know how many people hate them and how many people sympathize with them. You don't know what connections they have with each other or with current regimes. You don't know how these organizations are run, or if there are factional splits within them. You don't know the names of more than three of their leaders. You probably could not even write a definition of the word "terrorist."

Eighth, you probably have never been a civilian in a war zone. You saw the attacks of 9/11 on television, but you probably didn't experience them, or know anyone who did. Your town has probably never been bombed or invaded. You have never seen your country overthrown in a violent coup. You have probably never lived under a dictatorship. You almost certainly do not know what its like to face jail simply for speaking up for your beliefs.

Ninth, you know absolutely nothing about Iraqi public opinion. You don't know what people over there are thinking. You don't know what people are thinking in different regions of the country. You don't know what they would like to see in a government. You have no idea what their idea of justice and democracy is. You may have heard a snippet of a poll or two, but since you don't know how those polls were conducted, what the methodology is, and how scientific such a poll is in relation to other polls, you really have no fucking clue what even the so called "general" sentiment is. you don't know how many Iraqis welcome the presence of U. S. troops. You don't know how many Iraqis wish U.S. troops harm. You don't know what people there are thinking, and you probably never will.

Tenth, you almost certainly do not know what its like to face combat. There is a decent chance that you know someone how is facing combat, but you can't understand what they are going through.

Eleventh, what little you do know, or what little you think you know, comes entirely from the mass media. You might question the way the media presents its stories, but you make no real effort to find information from other sources. Hell, you don't even follow the events in the mass media that closely. Maybe a couple of times a week you will actually watch the news all the way through. You know more about "Friends" or the "American Idol," than you know bout recent events in Iraq. You certainly have never actually watched or read anything from Al-Jazeera, even though you often deride the way it covers the news.

Twelfth, you can't possibly have the slightest idea how things in Iraq will change as time progresses. No one knows that. you can not see into the future. You don't know how it all will end. You don't know what will happen next.

Thirteenth, you know jackshit about the United Nations and international diplomacy. You don't know which countries are in the "Arab League." You can't name even half of the members of the U.N. security council. You don't know when the U.N. was founded, and you have never read the U.N. charter. you don't know where U.N. troops are currently deployed. You don't know the budget of the U.N., and you don't know where that money comes from. You don't understand U.N. voting procedures. Maybe, just maybe you know what city the U.N. headquarters are in. you certainly don't know all the members of NATO, the EU, or the "non-aligned" movement.

Fourteenth, you definitely do not know "what the world thinks about the U. S." You do not have a clear understanding of the opinion of the U.S. in very many, if any, countries of the world. Hell, you probably don't even know the names of more than six heads of state throughout the world, much less what they think of the U.S. You don't even know why other countries think certain things about us. You may have a guess, but let me tell you right now, that guess is probably way off.

Fifteenth, you don't know crap about economics. you don't know how the federal reserve system works. you don't know how OPEC works. You don't know how the unemployment rate is defined. You don't understand currency or gold markets. There is absolutely no way you understand you these structures are connected to the building of a functioning nation-state. Trade agreements? Please. you have never read one in your entire life.

Sixteenth, even though you always talk about Democracy, I bet you couldn't even define what you mean by that. Go ahead and try. Define it in three sentences or less. Now, try to explain how that was achieved in this country. Goooood luck.

Seventeenth, if you actually managed to come up with something about what you mean by Democracy and how it was achieved in America, try to come up with a way that "we" can go about accomplishing the same thing in Iraq in just a matter of a year or two, if ever. When making this calculation, don't forget to take into account of the things I have pointed out to you that you don't know.

I'm only saying this so that you will stop pretending that you know the solution to "the situation in Iraq." You don't have a clue. Even if you did know all of the things I listed, you still would only have a cursory understanding of how to help "the situation." Even then, the best you could do was offer a semi-demi-psuedo educated guess about the best course of action that would be rife with sweeping generalizations and the lacking in significant evidence. Even then, you might as well use a dartboard.
jaguar • Jun 12, 2004 2:42 am
However, you don't even have close to that cursory understanding of what is taking place, and neither do I. Just about the only thing you and I can know for certain is that over 800 coalition troops have lost their lives in Iraq, and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have also died. These numbers can be proven. Not much else can be.

Considering all of this, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling everyone what should be done over there. You don't know what needs to be done, and I don't either. This is something you need to remember in the future whenever another one of our "elected" officials tells us that a nation that has not attacked us is a "threat to our security" and that we need to engage in "regime change" to fix the situation. When they say this, tell them bullshit. when they say it will be a clean and easy procress, tell them bull fucking shit. Please remember how messed up things are in reality, no matter how they sound in a neatly prepared speech. Please remember how little you actually know about these situations, and beg "our leaders" to remember the same thing about themselves, because the last thing we need is to get into another situation like this that no one knows how to fix.
--------------------------------------
Stupid Post length limit.
elSicomoro • Jun 12, 2004 10:30 am
Jag, I want you to step away from the computer. I also want you to set down the coffee and cigarettes...no...put 'em down!
richlevy • Jun 12, 2004 10:30 am
Right on! The first step to wisdom is coming to grips with one's ignorance. My only question was who was this post directed at the man in the White House or some generic man on the street?
SteveDallas • Jun 12, 2004 12:15 pm
It doesn't matter, rich. I was just gonna say, this is 100% true. Unfortunately that means nobody knows.

Unless everybody knows??
Undertoad • Jun 12, 2004 1:05 pm
I'm sure that Kos does not mean to imply that nobody knows. I'm sure he means to say that it's just people like me and you who should STFU.

What I took from it was re-reading it with the media in mind. What do the people know who are telling us what's happening?
SteveDallas • Jun 12, 2004 1:25 pm
Originally posted by Undertoad
I'm sure that Kos does not mean to imply that nobody knows. I'm sure he means to say that it's just people like me and you who should STFU.

Well even so, it raises the very legitimate question, who DOES know?
lumberjim • Jun 12, 2004 1:33 pm
we could ask jeeves?

I bet GOD knows. let's ask Him!

[size=1]c'mon, slang[/size]
jaguar • Jun 12, 2004 1:40 pm
Very few people indeed.
Catwoman • Jun 14, 2004 10:22 am
No one knows the future but if we could step a little closer to understanding the past it may help clarify the present. GWB has no idea why Al-Qaeda (et al) exists, or that it may (gasp) have something to do with Amercian oppression: the 'we-think-we're-kings-of-the-universe-and-if-you-don't-give-us-what-we-want-we'll-take-it-anyway' philosophy that has led to the deaths of so many men. And women. And children. For gods sake when will it stop. Will no one ever act on the irony that the American public (at least those I have spoken to here) have far, far more intelligence than the man running their country?

Takes a deep breath and goes for a beer.
Troubleshooter • Jun 14, 2004 10:29 am
Originally posted by Catwoman
No one knows the future but if we could step a little closer to understanding the past it may help clarify the present. GWB has no idea why Al-Qaeda (et al) exists, or that it may (gasp) have something to do with Amercian oppression: the 'we-think-we're-kings-of-the-universe-and-if-you-don't-give-us-what-we-want-we'll-take-it-anyway' philosophy that has led to the deaths of so many men. And women. And children. For gods sake when will it stop. Will no one ever act on the irony that the American public (at least those I have spoken to here) have far, far more intelligence than the man running their country?

Takes a deep breath and goes for a beer.


You do realize that this opinion is nothing new in the scheme of human behavior right?
Undertoad • Jun 14, 2004 10:32 am
Cat, I don't know shit about Iraq, but neither do you and I strongly believe that your narrative on the situation is inaccurate.
Catwoman • Jun 14, 2004 10:55 am
Of course it's nothing new. It's one of the oldest problems in history. My saying it will make no difference to you, or me, or the people that can make a difference. But I have a strong opinion about the situation. Self-censorship is the most powerful form of control in both our supposedly 'liberated' countries. If I cannot express an opinion... we are no more democratic than the countries we invade for that very reason. And I hope you will attack me and correct me, because I so want to be wrong.

Please tell me what about what I have said is inaccurate. This whole debate is about admitting ignorance, and I don't pretend to know anything (look at my sig). My judgement is based on a better-than-most understanding of 20c history, good knowledge of current events, and a very good understanding of media, propaganda and human behaviour. If you feel you can better inform me, please go ahead (*said without aggression :) ).
Undertoad • Jun 14, 2004 11:22 am
I think the notion that al Qaeda exists because of American oppression is wildly incorrect. Most of their attacks are not on American interests. The suspicion now is that they want to disrupt the oil industry, which would impact other areas of the world more than it would the U.S. al Qaeda wants to establish their brand of Islamic fundamentalism through the funding of hardliners in the Arabic world.

America does not oppress them, they want to oppress America.

(My hope is that we please do not let the progressive movement accidentally support fascism!)
Catwoman • Jun 14, 2004 11:54 am
Al-Quaeda are anti-imperialist and view capitalism as the world's oppressor. As the largest propagator of the above, it is no surprise America comes under attack. You have to agree that a lot of America's actions internationally are based on self-interest (which of course underpins capitalism anyway). This is what (on a basic level) these fanatic groups, utopian and willing to die for their vision, are rising up against. They do not want to oppress America, they want to destroy the cock-sure, money-orientated, imperialist principles they believe it is built upon. They believe so strongly in this, they are willing to die for it. Do you have anything you are willing to die for? To dismiss them as irrational fanaticists is irresponsible. In a hostage situation (which this escalating crisis is effectively becoming) do you give in to the demands of the kidnapper? Do you at least listen to them without letting pride get in the way? It goes without saying that Al-Quaeda and other militant groups cannot be tolerated. But you cannot assume what they say is wrong just because they are the ones to say it.
jaguar • Jun 14, 2004 12:04 pm
America does not oppress them, they want to oppress America.

Apart from removing the first democratic government in Iran, supporting the house of Saud, invading Iraq, supporting Israel.....

Catwoman one thing to note is that nation states will, by their very nature always do what is best for them, principles be damn which is exactly why the US has supported more despotic and cruel regimes than anyone else - they're better at it.

As far as I am aware Al-Queda's goal was to destroy the great satan and establish a pan-islamic states that consisted of most of the middle east and asia. Or something. Thing is we're not dealing with Al Queda anymore, hell even the media (usually last to the party of these things) has started to realize the only ties most of these groups have to Al Queda is thinking along the same lines, most have their own little goals and targets.
Undertoad • Jun 14, 2004 12:13 pm
al Qaeda is not anti-Imperialist. They are imperialists themselves. Since the US is not imperialist attacks against it or its interests are not anti-imperiaist.

al Qaeda does not view capitalism as the world's oppressor. They have not mentioned much in the way of economics at all.

As is often the case in capitalism, American's actions around the world support the rest of the world's interests even more than they support their own interests. But not Europe's... India, China, and Brazil's:

Image
[SIZE=1]yearly percentage increases in petroleum consumption averaged to 2025[/size]

"destroy the cock-sure, money-orientated, imperialist principles they believe it is built upon" I believe the psych term for this is "projection": that's not what al Qaeda wants, that's what YOU want, and as you admire their strong horse you want to empathize with the parts of them you find intriguing.

al Qaeda wants to BE the cock-sure etc. They believe that Allah has willed the actions that take place and that they are merely the triggers. They believe they have the upper hand.

If you cannot believe this is wrong, I feel sorry for you.
Undertoad • Jun 14, 2004 12:33 pm
Apart from removing the first democratic government in Iran, supporting the house of Saud, invading Iraq,


These three don't make sense when used together because they are contradictory.
Happy Monkey • Jun 14, 2004 12:37 pm
Originally posted by Undertoad
These three don't make sense when used together because they are contradictory.
In what way? It shows that there are no principles involved in US intervention.
Undertoad • Jun 14, 2004 12:42 pm
It shows that they were different decades ago.

The House of Saud is supported partly because the alternatives are far worse right now. US intervention in Iraq is (was?) supposed to create power vacuums that eventually lead to its downfall by demonstrating how democracy can be an alternative even there.

Like in poker, sometimes your current bluff is to set up a big win later...
richlevy • Jun 14, 2004 9:14 pm
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on NATO (news - web sites) on Tuesday to get more peacekeeping forces into his country ahead of planned September elections, but said he was not seeking additional U.S. troops.


Why no additional U.S. troops? Because they are all in *(&()*&ing Iraq!
richlevy • Jun 14, 2004 9:17 pm
Originally posted by Undertoad
al Qaeda wants to BE the cock-sure etc. They believe that Allah has willed the actions that take place and that they are merely the triggers. They believe they have the upper hand.

If you cannot believe this is wrong, I feel sorry for you.


That's funny, we have guys on this side of the Atlantic who believe that they are the instruments of God's will. If the Israeli ultra-nationalists, the extremist Christian fundies, and the militant Islamists could all pick some nice barren real estate and have their own completely contained mini-Armageddon, the world would be a safer place.
Catwoman • Jun 15, 2004 8:54 am
Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology:

Demonstrates the Clausewitzian perception of war (as rational and instrumented for political gain) as unsuitable in the context of militant Muslim terrorism (UT at first glance this will support your argument, and to some extent I think you are right about imposing my perception onto theirs... goes back to whether you consider the speaker as important as what is said). This is why I do not agree with the war (yes of course it was to deflect attention from 9/11 and thus a direct result of it), and why GWB doesn't understand who or what he is fighting against. How can you win a war when you don't know your enemy?

America to them represents satan - they are fighting a fantastical, religious battle which we are attempting to counter with bombs and occupation. By trying to establish a democracy in Iraq we are merely preparing for the emergance of a new legal brand of terrorism (Hitler, Mussolini). History, history.
Undertoad • Jun 15, 2004 9:21 am
I think that's a very good piece.
Arliquin • Jun 16, 2004 5:44 am
But whose job is it to know Iraq? Evidently, a lot of people 'know' something? Where were the PhD Orientalists, Historians, Middle East fundis etc? There is like an expert in every field conceivable nowadays. There could not have been a lack of information. But no-one seems to have been at hand to tell the politicians any sense against venturing to Babylon, as it was known when Alexander the Great fell there. Not like they needed a PhD advisor. Was this all hinging on ...'intel'?

You named a good many almost at random, so to someone whose job it is to study the middle-East , would'nt he have immediately said that the facts, as viewed from a historical & religious perspective should be against adopting the role of villian, in a tale that is completed by the presence of one.
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 7:25 am
It shows that they were different decades ago.

The House of Saud is supported partly because the alternatives are far worse right now. US intervention in Iraq is (was?) supposed to create power vacuums that eventually lead to its downfall by demonstrating how democracy can be an alternative even there.

Like in poker, sometimes your current bluff is to set up a big win later...


Bullshit, they're all examples of the US meddling in the affairs of soverign middle eastern nations and fucking it up badly, the wondering why everyone hates them. The only difference in IRaq is instead of the CIA wacking someone they sent the army instead.

The thing is that now the dust has settled, it's fairly clear what happened, the CIA, since it blows goats on human intel relied on dodgy sat photos and confessions from ex-baathist generals who had defected (who had their own agendas) for intel about Iraq's WMD capacity, hell Saddam himself was probably being lied to - would you tell him that you didn't actually have any left after the weapons inspectors?

Hawks in the adminstration ignored protestations of the real intel guys that everyone was far too hazy and grabbed every posssible thing (uranium from africa) as though it was concrete.

People knew what was going on, they were just ignored by neocons with stars in their eyes.
Undertoad • Jun 16, 2004 8:12 am
Well at least they got the al Qaeda connection right.
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 8:18 am
What Al Queda connection would that be exactly? I've seen precisely jack shit linking them. Yes, Zarqawi active in Iraq but how does that link him to Saddam Hussien exactly? It's pisspoor smoke and mirrors. Look! We have evidence, or something, or maybe we don't but they're there now so they must always have been!

I mean look at this:
In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks.

In short, he fucking lied.

Christ, remote lime pit somewhere, one bullet each and the world would be a much safer place than if someone offed bin laden. If the SS spooks want to visit me here, feel free.
Undertoad • Jun 16, 2004 8:34 am
Whenever evidence is brought out, everyone blithely ignores it. Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes published his findings in a book after writing several articles.
russotto • Jun 16, 2004 9:30 am
Originally posted by Undertoad
I think that's a very good piece.


Yes. I'm not totally convinced by it, but it is interesting. However, the best course of action for the US doesn't seem to change regardless of whether Al Queda is engaging in rational war or irrational fantasy-fulfillment. In either case, the only answer seems to be to crush them and drive their women into the arms of McKinnon and Dworkin (solving several problems there...)
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 9:46 am
Firstly, that's the same defectors that said Iraq has massive stocks of WMD. Sorry, not buying it, you this the admin is sitting on some massive secret report that somehow links them? They've been peddling every tiny bit of evidence they have and then retracting it a few weeks later once the media splashes it everywhere.

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."
I think that says it all, they all started making up different stories. Every point in that article is weak, evidence flimsy and sources seriously questionable. Just because some scaremonger sees an opportunity to gather every dodgy little scrap the intel community drops doesn't mean it's true. I mean some of this stuff he may as well just be making up as he goes along.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

For example, how does he know that? He may as well have said it contains detailed information of Saddam's barbie collection for all the proof he has.
Undertoad • Jun 16, 2004 10:24 am
The 9/11 commission is reporting today that they found evidence of contacts between al-Qaida (I'm gonna use this AP spelling) and Iraq, but did not find evidence that Iraq participated in attacks against the US.
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 10:27 am
Where?
Happy Monkey • Jun 16, 2004 10:32 am
Here.

Apparently, there were abortive gestures from each towards the other, but all were rebuffed.
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 10:34 am
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.
Well gee, I take it all back UT, they were so close they were virtually in bed with each other. The US govt has had more ties to terrorist groups than Saddam.
Undertoad • Jun 16, 2004 10:49 am
And yet it's not exactly "They would have been arch-enemies due to their differences in Islamic theory", which was the progressive argument last year.

Connections between al-Qaida and Iraq are shown... and some AP flack decided that the lack of proof of direct assistance should be the headline?

Who decided on the word "rebuffed" when there was only a document requesting help, no return document saying "thanks but no thanks"?

Let's see, bin Laden wanted a training camp in Iraq. There were several training camps in Iraq. We find documents where "bin Laden" is actually whited out with white-out. The intel is crappy and yet we find evidence of this connection. It took over a year after the war for this one to be shown. I don't need my hand to be held on this one, do you?
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 12:03 pm
Yes, the intel is crappy, that doesn't mean you don't get anything, it means you get bad data. Like that Iraq has massive stockpiles of WMD. Where did these ideas ceom from? Exiled Iraqis who wanted Saddam out of power so they made up whatever would push their case forward, this is clear now.

The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda
There is no evidence, as for those 'documents' from a cheap hack, if you think he is better informed and has more access than the entire intel establishment it's you that needs your hand held. If that article was all true it must have been missed entirely by the 9/11 commission and I assume been covered up in something of watergate proportions. Unname sources, 'well placed' sources, documents that we have no proof exist, the word of others, there's nothign solid in there, it's a pile of shit, if half of that were true it would be incendry as hell. The weekly standard is a right-wing shill and well known for it, you should try reading some real news one of these days.
Happy Monkey • Jun 16, 2004 12:10 pm
Originally posted by Undertoad
Let's see, bin Laden wanted a training camp in Iraq. There were several training camps in Iraq. We find documents where "bin Laden" is actually whited out with white-out. The intel is crappy and yet we find evidence of this connection. It took over a year after the war for this one to be shown. I don't need my hand to be held on this one, do you?
You seem to have better intel than the administration. Cheney's the only one touting a connection anymore, and even he isn't willing to give evidence.
Undertoad • Jun 16, 2004 12:15 pm
What did you say the opinion of the intel community is on this matter?
jaguar • Jun 16, 2004 12:21 pm
I'm sure it varies but I'm yet to see anyone say with any degree of certainty or without multiple exit clauses that there are any links at all.

Let's see, bin Laden wanted a training camp in Iraq. There were several training camps in Iraq.
See look at this, you're pulling together bits of info you know little about and have no access to the primary sources for and despite the fact those with such access have claimed nothing of the sort, are trying to claim they are linked.
Happy Monkey • Jun 16, 2004 12:23 pm
I don't believe I said anything about the opinion of the intel community. But if they had any evidence, I would certainly expect the administration to be touting it.
lookout123 • Jun 19, 2004 5:42 pm
Originally posted by Catwoman
. In a hostage situation (which this escalating crisis is effectively becoming) do you give in to the demands of the kidnapper? Do you at least listen to them without letting pride get in the way?


if they are "kidnappers" - HELL NO. you don't listen to kidnappers to see if there is a good reason for it. that ranks up there with thinking we should care why a child molestor screws kids.

if a white guy in denver started kidnapping people and threatening to kill them would you feel we need to listen to the "why"?
jaguar • Jun 19, 2004 5:58 pm
This is not some white guy in denver though is it.
Lets face it, every terrorist/resistance/rebel army exists because there is some kind of grevience with whoever is in charge, the problem can almost enver be solved militarily without first solving the issue to some degree, in most cases there is some validity as well. While whoever kidnapped and behaded the guy should be dealt with, dealing with the root cause is paramount to stopping it happening it again and far more effective tham more security.
xoxoxoBruce • Jun 19, 2004 9:00 pm
No, it isn't some guy in Denver. It's some scumbag that's sick of dating goats in his loser village and succumbs to the bullshit that it all our fault. Believes a jihad against the great satan will win points with allah and get him out of his parents house. Oh what a splendid adventure it will be. Hey maybe terrorists have groupies. Certainly after the great satan has been vanquished there will be rewards. Beats dating goats.:p
God • Jun 19, 2004 9:56 pm
Originally posted by lumberjim
we could ask jeeves?

I bet GOD knows. let's ask Him!

[size=1]c'mon, slang[/size]


Sorry for entering the debate so late, I was implanting some wisdom into the hearts and minds of the Supreme Court.


Any----way....I have been receiving a lot of prayers about Iraq. And even I dont_know_shit_about it.


My time is valuable. I't be better spent on other critical issues like rigging the presidential election.

May pieces be with you,

THE God
jaguar • Jun 20, 2004 3:05 am
Dude you get a bad rap in this, dump your management and get some new PR, update your image, it would help a lot.

Weel no, it's not, they're armed and organized, chances are it's a bunch of pissed off 20-30y.o men who have few chances of improving their lot and cannot speak out against the US-backed house of Saud so have come under the wing of an afghan-wars trained mujadideen fighter with an axe to grind, at least that's the closest we have to a profile.
Undertoad • Jun 20, 2004 7:02 am
Have you people forgotten you don't know shit about Iraq.
jaguar • Jun 20, 2004 7:49 am
Well 1(partly), 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 15 don't apply to me so i'll wank on at lesioure ;)
novice • Jun 21, 2004 5:07 am
It is very true that I don't know shit about Iraq but I do know this- I'm experiencing a murderous rage for the motherfuckers beheading civilian hostages.
It's senseless and merciless. I imagine the impact the footage has on the families and the sheer frustration of their respective governments.
These people need to be identified and put down.
jaguar • Jun 21, 2004 5:22 am
I wouldn't say it's senseless per se, if you consider their goals, methods and limitations, I'd say it was pretty sensible. That said, it's still deplorable of course.
slang • Jun 21, 2004 10:53 pm
Here. Let me through some irrational thoughts into the mix.



1.) The (elite) media screwed the pooch with the 911 comission mis-headline.

2.) There is limited sympathy to be gained by beheading Americans in Iraq. Johnson was an engineer, not a "contractor" that would normally be spooking around under the radar of the US mil.

3.) After the handoff on the 30th, the new Iraqi government will be kicking ass and taking names like the US *should be* now, but cant due to "public opinion".

but then again, I'm just some drooling dumbass without a brain.
richlevy • Jun 21, 2004 11:04 pm
Originally posted by slang

3.) After the handoff on the 30th, the new Iraqi government will be kicking ass and taking names like the US *should be* now, but cant due to "public opinion".



Yeah? Them and what army? I mean that literally. After the US spent so much time hunting down former Baathists, a group which included most of the senior military, what capable leaders are there who aren't already running competing militias?

The new government will have zero street cred.
tw • Jun 22, 2004 8:30 am
Originally posted by richlevy
Yeah? Them and what army? I mean that literally.
Last I heard from the reams of contradictory information from the US administration, the US military in Iraq will be under the control of the Iraqi government. They will even hold Saddam in the airport for and under the control of the Iraqi government. Enough misinformation so that honest people cannot criticize the US government until it is a done deal - whatever that will be.
OnyxCougar • Jun 22, 2004 2:13 pm
[COLOR=indigo]What?? A one (relatively short) paragraph post from tw?


Dear Diary.....[/COLOR]
elSicomoro • Jun 22, 2004 2:25 pm
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
What?? A one (relatively short) paragraph post from tw?


AND it makes sense!
xoxoxoBruce • Jun 22, 2004 4:10 pm
Hmmm. So apparently it’s “Them” and “Our” army. For how long? Don’t like it, don’t like it one bit. :(
Kitsune • Jun 26, 2004 8:08 pm
Image
xoxoxoBruce • Jun 27, 2004 3:04 am
Is that Happy Monkey down in front?:haha:
Happy Monkey • Jun 27, 2004 8:36 am
Nah. Hair too short.