 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20th, 2006 11:02 pm |
|
The unbelievable gall of the anti-Iraq War media/politicians/academia to be rooting, pulling-for and even proclaiming that there is a Civil War in Iraq. There is no civil war. Shame on those heinous liars to suggest that there is. The anti-war far leftist media picked up on the al Queda propaganda lines instantly- civil war is coming and nobody can stop al Queda ! THERE IS NO HOPE!!! LET'S JUST GIVE UP!!!
All because al Queda and the anti-Iraq war factions both hate George Bush and conservative Americans with all-consuming passion. What an odd coincidence. The most heinous, fanatical anti-American mass-murderers in the 21st century, (Bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's groups) are now the far-leftist Democrat's best buddies? Hmmm. Defending and aligning themselves with murderers again. A Democratic party main pastime, and this time, they have aligned themselves with those who are primarily focused upon murdering Americans. Such patriotism from the Democrats! Aligning themselves with al Queda and trying to give them a "Terrorists Bill of Rights" in Congress so that they can do an end run around the President's efforts to stop them! Nice.
Anyway, like I said, there is no civil war in Iraq, no matter how badly the allies of al Queda-in-Iraq and Howard Dean's DNC want there to be. One hundred percent of that country's military, and industrial infrastructure are in the hands of the elected leaders. That's not a civil war, a**holes! The situation in Iraq is no more a civil war than was post-WWII Italy, Germany or Japan. There was guerrilla unrest, terrorism etc. after those country's totalitarian fascist governments were replaced with representative democracies. The violent anti-government factions were eradicated over time.
I will bet any loud-mouthed anti-Iraq War faction member $1000 that there is not now, nor will there be a civil war in Iraq in 2006. Only a fool or a traitor would promulgate such a notion when it is not provably true. Of course, rationalists have emphatically, absolutely, positively declared that the Iraq phase of the World War on Terrorism is already a total failure - blatantly ignoring all of the unprecedented evidence of the historically-rapid progress to date and any area of doubt in their enthusiastic declaration of defeat.
It is only in the morbid dreams of anti-conservative, anti-American lfetists that Iraq is a failure. TO the day that the streets are paved with gold the conservative haters will declare that the Iraq war was a failure. Because that is what they need America to believe it is, in order to defeat conservative politicians.
A rationalist can look at you with a straight face and tell you that night is day, light is dark and bitter is sweet. A good rationalist is also a good egomaniac - capable of believing anything that one dreams up because of one's unshakable faith in one's own infallibility.
Just remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it! - George Costanza's instruction on "How to Beat a Lie Detector"
The above formula is the basis to the anti-conservative, anti-Iraq war strategy. The old Stalinist credo that any lie, no matter how outrageous, repeated often enough in the propaganda machinery takes on the complexion of the truth. Just chuck morality, conscience, patriotism and dignity into the trash and say whatever the f*ck you think might get your party members elected. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves to know what some people have done with the rights granted them under the U.S. Constitution.
Regardless of what some may think, the Constitution was never designed to give people the ability to commit treason if they felt like it. Those who have been and are now actively supporting the notion of immediate pull-out from Iraq are misguided at best. At worst, they are traitors to all of those poor people whom we, in the best spirit of the American Way, have helped to liberate from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
It's become a litmus test of basic intelligence for me these days. Any time I meet someone who is for immediate pull-out from Iraq, I just assume that they are either an easily-led polarized partisan, an America-hating Chomsky-ist, very foolish, or possibly insane (hopefully temporarily). I like to think that many who speak out against the war in Iraq are just spouting off- with strong emotions of extreme frustration, dissatisfaction with the Universe and a desire to vituperate against whatever authority faction is most-convenient to blame for whatever is bothering them.
Blatant emotionalism can impair intellect as badly as drugs, in my opinion. If the far-leftists are to be believed, anything that has gone correctly under "W" for the last five and half years has been blind luck and anything bad has been from gross negligence. Got it. Bush and the conservatives are to receive all of the blame for anything that goes wrong, and none of the credit for anything that goes right. They Crats would have everyone believe that the conservatives in office are overwhelmingly effective, and also completely weak and powerless. Hmmm. How is that possible?
Vote for me. Because I never lie and I'm always right. So wake up and vote for your only logical choice. Me! - Firesign Theater, 1971
The anti-Iraq war folks have taken a joke from a Firesign Theater record in 1971 and made it a political reality. The far-leftists are pitching themselves as Super Humanly smart (John Kerry - jocular erudite Super Genius!) , incapable of error and morally so far superior to conservatives the Crats feel it is not necessary to provide evidence of this (how convenient! since there is none). They just scoff derisively and say that if you can't see it, you're not smart enough to be considered seriously.
To the the dizzy Crats, the infidel Conservatives are just so obviously evil, wicked, irresponsible and all-round inferior, not just mistaken on policy. The Democrats will surely fix everything that's wrong with the U.S. and the world and will make no mistakes at all - just hand over Congress and the Whitehouse first. After all, the Democrats have done so much for the country so far with all of the actions of the ACLU, anti-military politicians, expansion of government entitlements to those who pay no taxes into the system, and reigning in the president's efforts to monitor al Queda communications with agents in America. Thanks!
The Stalinist line of the day is that anyone who disagrees with the far-leftist media's action lines (Bush Lied to Take Us to Iraq, Blood for Oil, No Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is Doomed to Failure, Iraq is Viet Nam, Bush's War is Making Terrorists Faster Than We Are Neutralizing Them, Civil War is Raging!, blah,blah,blah) is an inferior person in every way.May be they should be put into mental hopsitals, the way the Soviet Communists put away thousands of those whose only "insanity" was to disagree with Stalin politically.
The Crats have reverted in their desperation to good old Stalinist fascism, which states that lying and character-assassination are completely legitimate tactics to be used to destroy the political enemy and seize power - even by destroying your own countrymen. That is a basic principle of Marxist fascism from Joseph Stalin, a man who falsely imprisoned tens of millions of innocent bystanders, political opponents, and in his abject paranoia and obsession with pursuing Communist Utopia, outright murdered nearly 60 million of his own people. And that is whose favored propaganda tactics the Democrats have chosen to emulate to date in the 21st century.
To the Crats, conservative Americans aren't just wrong on policy, they are abysmally wicked and base in character - inferior people really. Interesting that this exactly mirrors the Fundamentalist Islamist view of infidels and those who disagree with them. Infidels are considered less-than-human. Just the way the arch-liberals say that they feel about conservative Americans. So the international terrorists and the far-left Democrats who lead their party today, have found solid common ground. Great. They both despise patriotic, pro-military Americans.
I imagine that many of the most extreme far-leftists would be delighted if they could do a deal with al Queda to kill conservative Americans and their families, if only the terrorists will leave the simpering, appeasment-obsessed arch-pacifists alone.
Seriously, that is how much insanity seems to be vested in the anti-Iraq war faction these days. They say that they honestly believe that conservative Americans are more dangerous to the stability of the world than fundamentalist Islamist/Militant Arab terrorists! How can one reason with someone who says that they believe that?
And all of that venal crap about expressing opinions as facts. It's such a hack trick using the term "believe". See, advertisers learned long ago that by inserting certain words and terms into their ads, they could basically lie all day when they sell their product. As long as those strategic words are placed appropriately, you can make any public claim, no matter how at odds with reality, and not worry for a second about a lawsuit.
For example, if Joe publicly says, "Fred murdered Barney", then Fred can sue Joe for slander (unless Fed is convicted of murdering Barney). But if Joe says, "I believe that Fred murdered Barney" neither Fred nor anyone else can touch him legally. Why? Because the statement that Joe believes that Fred is a murderer is demonstrably true. Opinions are never facts in the eyes of the law, so they are not covered by slander.
That's where the anti-war people live. By saying that they believe there is a civil war, the more "moderate" anti-war Crats are absolved from all future blame for being dishonest or failing to grant the benefit of the doubt to their own fellow Americans. The coward's way out. Betraying their own countrymen and never having to accept blame or punishment for it. That is the Democratic Party basic entitlement package these days.
A greater problem than spinning anti-American lies immune to prosecution, is that nobody can sue someone for slandering the United States. If some vicious, lying, anti-American bastard says, "There is a civil war in Iraq today," or, "American soldiers are deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq," there is no legal compulsion that prevents them from saying it, even if they know it to be false at the time. Even if some a**hole does not have a shred of evidence to support some outrageous accusation against his own country, he/she can state it as fact and nobody can touch him legally.
The country cannot be legally protected from slander- especially not from it's own leaders. The Crats are playing this entitlement to the very hilt. And even though they are getting away with it for the most part, without paying any legal consequences, it's killing them with Mr. and Mrs. America, who are paying attention far more than the Crats believe or hope. You'll see in the Mid-Terms, folks.
The only option we have for punishing politicians for slandering or betraying their nation is to vote them out of office. When it comes to anti-war partisans, I suggest that we do exactly that.
It seems clear to me that Free Iraq is improving far faster than this country in terms of purging Herself of traitors.
PG
|
Corvus
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Tue Apr 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 913 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21st, 2006 08:32 am |
|
Though I didn't read through your whole post . . . I find it hard to believe that a civil war would not exist, seeing that the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds have been at each others throats since the clerical interpretations of Islam/Mohammad split. Iraq has always been at civil war and this is something Saddam Hussain prevented through his harsh methods. There is no way a democracy will ever take hold when the representation of each of these groups will always remain murky and heated.
It's quite possible "we've" made things worse . . . though nobody here would ever admit that.
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/2005/02/sunni-shiite-iraq.html
=
Civil War . . .
Last edited on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 08:42 am by Corvus
____________________
"In a person (not Corvus) who is open to experience each stimulus is freely relayed through the nervous system, without being distorted by any process of defensiveness." -C. Rogers
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21st, 2006 12:13 pm |
|
Corvus, that URL is an interesting overview. Thanks for posting it. Nice to see you!
I can easily understand why one would not want to thoroughly listen to an indictment (such as I delivered above) in which those who behave as I describe are put in to the category of being among those whose behavior is labeled traitorous. Nobody likes to be put into any group with such characteristics. But like Mr. Natural said, if the sandal fits...
Can you agree that there has been a dumbing-down of the principle of evidence since the Stalinist onslaught of prevarication and obfuscation was launched by the anti-war factions? Stating opinions ("There is already Civil war in Iraq" - Traitor John Murtha) as facts?
By definition a civil war is an internecine conflict where civil order breaks down progressively, centralized authority is completely disrupted, and the federal leadership is displaced by factional authorities who do not answer to nationally elected leaders.
None of that has taken place, so with all due respect, how can anyone say that what is merely a continuation of an on-going level of terrorist violence (which does not represent any cohesive, strategically effective, popularly-supported political faction, and so is not an "insurgency") is suddenly now to be called a "civil war"?
Nothing has changed much over time in Iraq in that sense, except the desperate mounting frenzy of the anti-war media to assign the term "civil war" to the conflict for obvious political reasons of making things look as bad and bleak as possible in order to use it as a bludgeon with which to beat the President of the United States over the head.
No, I'd like to agree with you, but nothing much has changed in Iraq in terms of the dynamic of increasing centralized control of the infrastructure/military and decreasing influence and relative strength of the faction that wants to restore fascism.
All of the anti-Iraq war fanatics are going to feel pretty stupid if, as seems likely, all of the endless doom-saying never materializes, (despite the cheerleaders on the side of the terrorists) and Free Iraq becomes an independant, functional democracy where violent terrorism is a problem but is nothing close to being a civil war.
Remember our own Civil War? That was when a huge part of the United States literally broke all contact with another, stopped sending taxes to the federal government, and waged a concerted, coordinated war against the other for domination of about half of the territory of this nation.
If and when any of that starts happening in Iraq, I'll be more inclined to listen to the voices of doom and gloom. But for now, I think such casual, off-hand prognostications of hopelessness are grotesquely premature and serve only those who gravitate towards negativity.
I am frankly a little shocked at how easily Corvus has apparently been seduced to the "dark side" simply because the anti-war Democrats have started acting like bitter, vicious old people who hate everybody and everything that is cheerful, affirmative or optimistic and see only infamy, tragedy and doom in the future.
Is there no longer any room for optimism or charity of spirit to the down-trodden, (the Iraqi people) of any kind on the left? Why so reluctant to admit the possibility of victory in Iraq? It's like the term "victory" has become, like "patriotism", a dirty word that elicits animated cynicism from the far-left, but little else.
Why is it that the left is willing to offer lots of advice and lots of criticism but no help to our nation in time of war? What is noble, patriotic, or courageous about that?
There is an old saying, "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Wouldn't the nation be better served if the Democrats and the far left took some of that advice instead of trying to reinvent themselves every ten minutes into the political fantasy flavor-of-the-month that is "mouth-wateringly irresistible" to the consumers? I mean, really?
PG
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24th, 2006 06:27 pm |
|
Made things worse, Corvus? Those modern liberals whose weakened bio-systems cannot stand war always think that "war is worse than peace".
So, a hell where no one is shot is preferable to an exit from hell where someone has to pay a price that has to be in blood?
For me, democracy is a prerequisite for allowing people to work on their own souls, and, seeing how many people were butchered by Sadaam, I don't see Iraq as worsening even statistically.
Now about the "civil war":
The question is: what is the operational definition of a civil war and to what degree does the present situation in Iraq fit that operational definition?
Seeing that a "civil war" means that groups within a larger entity are at war with each other such that the government itself is divided and no longer effective, you could try to hang that definition onto Iraq, but it won't really explain what is going on there, and it won't stick.
There is an insurgency. That insurgency is a group of renegades (or rebels from the Latin, rebellarsi, which means to go back to war) who won't recognize the results of 12 million Iraqis going to the polls and coming up with a government. Most of the "insurgents" are foreign fighters, though.
That insurgency is trying to start a civil war, but has failed. That is why the recent destruction of a holy shrine was actually dampered down rather successfully and rather quickly.
At this point even the insurgent Baathists who are trying to restore the rule by Saddam's party have been involved in guarding the polls and are so disgusted by the use of indiscriminate force by Al Qada's what's-his-name that they have been working with the Iraqi police hunting down and killing AlQada.
So, the larger populations of the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis are not, I repeat, are not at war. And the Sunnis know they are without the means to enforce domination over the other two groups and are increasingly looking for a real fair share.
Most of the war is foreigners working under AlQada, and therefore, once again, this is not a civil war.
You only have to ask yourself what would happen if all the foreigners, even the US, left at this point.
And the answer would be: relative peace. But the "other" foreigners, AlQada, are not about to leave, and we shouldn't until all the insurgent forces are rendered ineffective.
So, there is not a basis for arguing that this is a civil war and therefore we should stay out. This implication is the basis of the attempt to define what is happening there as a "civil war".
Murtha feels guilty about Vietnam, if you ask me, and is a contrarian now after a long life lived in conformity. I may be judging him unfairly but his use of "infer" when he meant "imply" is one of those mistakes made by wannabe intellectuals who don't know what they are talking about.
I know that sounds picky and stupid but that is my general impression of the man.
If there is a legitimate criticism to make of Bush's handling of the war, it is that we should have had more troops on the ground in the aftermath of the war.
Bush has other glaring defects which undermine our faith in his judgment. For example, it doesn't make any sense that we have open borders with Mexico during a war on terror and a war on drugs.
What? We don't want to depend on the Mexican Mafia to make sure that no terrorists would get through because that would cut back on their drug running profits? All this so as to not alienate some Latino voters?
This type of failing on Bush's part is the reason we don't trust him. Portgate was another one.
We also have been sold some part of a bridge in Brooklyn about the economy and free trade.
I just got done listening to Rush Limbaugh and now I am pissed. He touted the story about the rise of manufacturing goods.
He pointed out the rise was due to an increase in the orders for civilian aircraft, but failed to say that, excluding that, it was actually down by a percent.
That is such a deliberate misuse of information that I could indulge in being livid.
And, just the other day, I was reading some copies of Business Week while awaiting some executive or other, when I read that actual real income in the US is down by 1, 100 dollars per family.
This explains the unease you feel in the air even while the economy booms. The boom is without a real rise in wages. And we won't recover them as we have exported one manufacturing job in six during the Bush administration.
Neither Repubes nor Demonios will change their minds on this one, as they have sold their souls to internationalism and Wall Street, and none of them come from the working class, their leaders, that is.
All we need is one long, sustained oil crisis to bring the country to its knees. Fortunately, as all the long-distance truckers already know about bio-diesel, judging by a talk show I was listening to the other night, it might push us onto the road to energy independence.
It won't be fatal, but it will be needed to kick out the Clinton-Bush Wall Street mentality and return us to economic nationalism, which is a necessary part of the mentality needed to increase the wealth of the bottom half of American society.
Roy
PS Where Rush really scored points this morning was in talking about the media's corverage of the war. I was particularly impressed with his points about the lack of stories of personal heroism by Americans or Iraqis or British. There are very few interviews with Iragis who understand better than American journalists what is at stake.
With all this, it is a real pleasure to see the NYTimes struggling to make ends meet, financially.
Believe me, even liberal journalists believe that in selling their information to the American public, that the journalists should be making money.
Underneath it all, they believe that the old saw that if you are so damn smart, why ain't you rich? So hitting them in the pocketbook is just awesome.
Let them feel the pain of middle class and working folk who can't make a good living and want to hear the truth, such as some stories about "free trade" being a way to pimp out good Americans.
See, but the utter contempt in which the elite hold middle class people prevents them from speaking out, even while it is the exact audience that they speak.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 11th, 2006 12:57 am |
|
Now this, which is being utterly ignored by the Drive-By Anti-Iraq War Media. Another indication that what the Iraqi leaders have been saying is true: the terrorists are being slowly choked off, as one sector after another is secured by infrastructure maintained by the free Iraqi government.
Sure the terrorists can kill maybe twenty people a day and lose about half that number themselves to military/police raids, and the terrorists probably lose twice again that number to desertion from the "cause" each day. Deserters are also likely to turn in their former colleagues because they are not kind to those who wish to retire. It's kind of like the Hell's Angels, as far as I can figure. Once you join, you're in for life. So the ones who want out, take out anyone close to them as self-defense against reprisals upon them or their families.
It loose affiliation of gangs, with no overall strategy for retaking territory. Surely they dream of getting ahold of some of those WMD that Saddam promised them that are now buried in northern Lebannon or in south-eastern Syria or maybe stashed in a bunker on a Syrian military base.
Here's an article about the captured letter.
Published: May 9, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 8 (AP) — The Council of Holy Warriors, Al Qaeda's branch in Iraq, is worried that its cells in the Baghdad area are ineffective, with one militant describing their activities as nothing more than a "daily annoyance" to the Iraqi government, according to two documents released Monday by the United States military.
The military said it had seized the documents on April 16 during raids in and around Yusifiya, a town 10 miles south of Baghdad that has long served as a base for Sunni Arab extremists. The documents indicate that the group is worried that it is unable to secure a solid base within Baghdad, military officials said.
The documents seemed to be released as part of an American campaign to deflate the image of the local branch of Al Qaeda and that of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The documents were made available four days after the military released what it said were clips that the group had cut from a video before posting it on the Web. In those clips, Mr. Zarqawi fumbles with an American-made machine gun. In the version on the Web, Mr. Zarqawi appears as a confident, skilled warrior.
In one of the newly released documents, an unidentified member of the group wrote that the cells in Baghdad are capable of only "hit and run" operations, leading the public to conclude that "the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and nearer to controlling it," while the mujahedeen "are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government."
The other document released Monday outlined the group's strategy in Baghdad. It said the Council of Holy Warriors should focus on the capital and reduce its attacks on Sunni areas.
Focusing on Baghdad, the document stated, would force the United States military to shift more of its resources there, which would allow the militants to regroup in their traditional bases. Those bases include the ones in Anbar Province, where the cities of Falluja and Ramadi are situated.
The writer says that the American and Iraqi government forces "were able to absorb our painful blows," enlist new recruits and "take control of Baghdad as well as other areas, one after the other."
Last edited on Thu May 11th, 2006 12:58 am by
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 11th, 2006 06:36 am |
|
First we destroy the enemies of democracy and freedom in Iraq, and then we...overthrow the Iranian gov't, invade Syria, start brewing our own "'shine" at home for 75 cents a gallon to pour into our tanks of gasoline.
Next we shut down the border, get rid of NAFTA and the WTO and then build about a thousand nuclear power plants, a thousand ethanol plants, replace all our windows with triple panes, build a windmill on every block and a small one on every house, start growing our food hydroponically on our rooftops, go on diets, learn to meditate and exercise out pubo-cocygeal muscle, the one that ejects the pee from our pee-ejector, the one that will make half-a-loaf into a whole one as good as any leather snap-on band or that dose of Viargra he money you wasted on.
Then we relax, enjoy ourselves and say, "Fuck you" to the world.
Roy
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3598 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 11th, 2006 10:12 am |
|
I liked it better when Saddam was attacking Iran.
*sigh* feelings of nostalgia....
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 17th, 2006 02:13 am |
|
Bygones are painful.
Here, for anyone who doesn't believe that the anti-war media is suppressing information that is not favorable to their templates.
Who would have guessed that the rate of violent-death's per 100 K would be more than double that of Baghdad in Columbia, South America? And what about liberal playground Washington D.C. !?! Yep...
From KFI EIB Radio:
It's that time of year when New Yorkers start making their summer vacation plans. Renting a place in the Hamptons? Nah, been there, done that. How about a Parisian jaunt? Noooo. Too many riots. Well, how about visiting a country that's ancient, historic, beautiful and exotic - Iraq? Sure, there's a little war going on there, but when you look at the violent death statistics in the world, [Iraq is] safer than a number of other popular travel destinations. Believe it or not. I happened to catch Rep. Steve King, a Republican of Iowa, on C-span last week and he rattled off some startling figures that demonstrate how off-base journalists are when it comes to reporting on the war in Iraq.
 "According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war.
So Iraq, I mean, if you're just going to roll the dice and take your chances, Iraq's a much safer place to go than Washington or Jamaica or New Orleans pre-Katrina, or Venezuela!
Last edited on Thu May 18th, 2006 12:20 am by
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3598 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 17th, 2006 02:11 pm |
|
In todays news:
"Iran opened fire on Iraqi territory for the first time since the US invasion in 2003. Local officials said about 2,000 shells were fired in four hours."
and..
"Mr. Cheney has run into significant difficulties as he has found that many of the potential suppliers have become committed to China."
"We're in a race with China and so far we're losing"-Cheney
and..
Consumer Price inflation for All Urban Consumers popped up 0.9% in April according to figures out this morning. This pencils out to an annualized rate of 11.35% or 12.68% if you use the more honest "old weights" for your calculations.
Last edited on Wed May 17th, 2006 03:23 pm by *Phil*
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 17th, 2006 08:12 pm |
|
PG and Phil. Interesting posts. Like that chart on violent deaths. And the bullshitters are bullshitting their guts out about inflation. I agree.
Roy
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 22nd, 2006 08:00 pm |
|
Not surprising that this glad event was met by a deafening, enraged silence by the anti-war-lemmings. This is what, the sixth or seventh significant political event of progress in the struggle that began in 2003 that the far- leftists have predicted would "never happen". No, Iraq is a "complete failure", as Ted Kennedy said between cocktails at the Capitol Club press conference a few months ago. Does, "complete failure" mean something else in Irish Gaelic, Teddy? Otherwise you're another America-hating, defeatist asshole who has to eat his own defeatist, traitorous, "sky-is-falling" treasonous words - again.
President Bush on Monday said the inauguration of Iraq's new cabinet over the weekend is a "watershed event" that marks the newest "constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East" and a major milestone in that country's movement toward stability.
"This is a free government under a democratic constitution and its formation marks a victory for the cause of freedom in the Middle East," Bush told the National Restaurant Association meeting in Chicago.
Mr.Bush called on Iraq's new government to seize the moment and for the country's three main sectarian groups to pursue a common agenda. Bush told the crowd that in a phone call to Iraq's three main leaders, he congratulated new Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani and promised continued U.S. support.
"I thanked them for being courageous and strong and standing for the belief that liberty will help transform this troubled nation," Bush said. "The government is still a work in progress and overcoming longstanding divisions will take time.
"Iraq's new leaders know they have a great deal of work ahead to broaden the base of their government and unite the people. They also understand that representing all Iraqis, and not just narrow sectarian interests, they'll be able to make a decisive break with the past and make a future of progress and opportunity for all their people a reality," Mr. Bush said.
What!?! No comment Teddy Kennedy? Usually you are so full of a desire to be in front of the cameras spouting off about whatever neo-Marxist, anti-conservative, bigoted nonsense is on your mind. I guess the creation of a new democracy in the Middle East is an event below notice of a Big Shot like Ted Kennedy, you fat, alcohol-soaked, treasonous Blue Blood son-of-b*tch!!!
Last edited on Sat Jun 10th, 2006 03:33 pm by
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10th, 2006 03:28 pm |
|
The dominoes are falling...
Harvest of Intel Booty : The Pendulum Swings Heavy Against Al Queda in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq: 10 June 2006 — Flush with intelligence, the U.S. military moved quickly Friday to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, carrying out nearly 40 raids in an effort to stop his terror network from regrouping.
A U.S. military search of the destroyed safehouse where the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader was killed Wednesday yielded documents and information storage devices that are being assessed for potential use against his followers, a military officer said.
An M-16 rifle, grenades and AK-47 rifles also were found, according to the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because results from the search have not been announced. The U.S.-made M-16 was fitted with special optics.
They also found documents and unspecified "media," which the officer indicated normally means information storage devices such as computer hard drives and digital cameras or other data storage devices.
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said 39 raids were conducted across Iraq late Thursday and early Friday, including some directly related to the information they obtained from the strike against Zarqawi. Those were in addition to 17 raids carried out immediately after the terror leader was killed.
Attachment: hibhib.jpg (Downloaded 86 times) Last edited on Sat Jun 10th, 2006 03:34 pm by
|
Khepri
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Wed Oct 26th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10th, 2006 04:51 pm |
|
Two stories from 2004 which add a bit more perspective to Zarqawi's demise. The first is by a former NSC staffer. ( Contrary to what is stated in these reports, according to an interview I heard yesterday, it's liklely that the Zarqawi camp never actually succeeded in producing ricin or cyanide weapons. No evidence of success were ever found. However, there's also apparently no doubt that there were plans to do so at that camp. )
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10th, 2006 06:28 pm |
|
Thnaks for the links, the interest and the visit, Khepri.
Roy
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3598 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 11th, 2006 12:36 am |
|
Khepri wrote:
Two stories from 2004 which add a bit more perspective to Zarqawi's demise. The first is by a former NSC staffer. ( Contrary to what is stated in these reports, according to an interview I heard yesterday, it's liklely that the Zarqawi camp never actually succeeded in producing ricin or cyanide weapons. No evidence of success were ever found. However, there's also apparently no doubt that there were plans to do so at that camp. )
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
It sounds like the Administartion attitude was "We've got a much bigger fish to fry" - not one man's weapons lab were he himself is most likely not even there but to take down the nation of Iraq the whole infrastructure supporting these murderous loonies. Thanks it does put things in perspective: One camp located with flimsey intelligence vs the whole country of camps with carefully detailed real-time information.
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 11th, 2006 04:09 am |
|
It is impossible to see that refusal as anything other than an enormous blunder.
Mr. "K" the greater point is well received, thanks for posting it. I am aware of the story of the blind pig.
Only one small part of the above article bothered me. In the context of what is now known about the greater issues at hand for the cheif executive in 2002, what is impossible is to understand is why the author of that article above from 2004 could not imagine that there might be other reasons for such decisions to which he might not be personally privy. Using a radical term like, "impossible" shows more than a little chutzpah for a mere journalist who has no connection to state policy making.
Sure, in his ignorant fantasies it's "impossible" for it to be anything other than an, "enormous blunder". Duh! It's on left-leaning "Slate". We already know that in the view of Slate, Bush is to receive all of the blame and none of the credit for anything good or bad that happens under his watch. Another journalistic "blunder" declares what is and is not "possible" and proven to be dead wrong. Again. What else is new?
It used to be that journalists withheld opinions until a prudent period of discovery could take place. Why has that ended for so many leftist journailsts, who are content to make sweeping radical generalizations without vetting of any kind? Smells like Stalinism to me. Using the Mass Media as a political weapon. Classic Stalinism.
If one is going to make postively assertive statements that include terms like "impossible" and extreme terms like, "enormous blunder," it's wise to back them with credibility instead of wind.
But the greater point is well taken - things are not always as they appear on the surface. Even a blind pig( the journalist who wrote the "expose") finds an acorn( of truth) once in awhile. The information was correct, the conclusions were not.Perhaps that's why journalists traditionally report, and allow others to interpret.
It's nice to see Mr. K return for a visit. Civilized fellow.
Last edited on Sun Jun 11th, 2006 06:08 pm by
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3598 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jun 11th, 2006 01:43 pm |
|
I remeber Clinton hitting a terrorist camp in Afghanistan with cruise missles. The camp turned out to be empty. Carter tried to rescue Iran hostages with Special Forces - everyone died.
I guess Khepri posted those two articles because they represent the very best and most lucid journalist analysis. OK. lol noob journalists.
Just because there is a plan does not mean it is a plan you will want to carry out. There may be high risk of failure and high risk of losing lives. But I'm sure LOTR journalists would have written "Boromir plan to defeat Sauron without war was ignored by council" Hahaha!
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 12th, 2006 06:52 pm |
|
I heard some traitorous liberal last night with the sturm and drung of defeatism, "There is a civil war in Iraq," he squeaked, "only we are not calling it that..." ! Really, says who? One 'Crat journalist.
Are we simply calling anything we like a "civil war" Bob? Shall we casually toss that dramatic term around like a frisbee? The last time I checked Bob, the definition of a civil war included most or all of the following:
In a Civil War - large parts of territory are not under the direct control of the central government. More than 95% of Iraq has been secured mostly since the end of Phase One (Major Military Battles for Control of Territory).
In a Civil War maintenance and building of infrastructure ceases due to a challenge to the central authority to maintain civil order.
In a Civil War, free elections are not held that include the "seceding" territories.
In a Civil War there is a representative faction on both sides that is directly connected to some popular constituency - the terrorist faction has no popular constituency in Iraq except disgruntled former-regime members who want to take back fascistic control- not democratic control, of the nation's oil wealth.
That's why it's technically incorrect to refer to the terrorists in Iraq as "insurgents". They offer nothing to replace democracy except non-representative militant totalitarian fascism. They are not even a "political movement" per se. They are a fraternity of lawless gangsters mostly using radical Sunni Islam as a convenient excuse to persue their own special self-obsessed brands of violent insanity.
If a Civil War, then why are there none of the telltale famines, no riots, no massive migrations of displaced refugees, no major military battles for control of regions, no large diversions of commodities, weapons, resources, or administration over long periods of time !?!
No cities where the flag flying over the City Hall changes every couple of months after battles, as in sub-Saharan African civil war territories of Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Congo, Eritrea, and the Gold Coast !?!
Do these journalists actually work for al Queda do you think? I mean, they deserve a check, I'd think, for all of their good work for the enemy's propaganda. This morbid wishful thinking - fear mongering that, "Your worst fears have already come to pass, America! Withdraw to save your selves!!"- shivering their fingers in our faces like tonic vendors working a yokel. Vicious cowards who will only strike at their protectors and providers - like shuddering, shrieking, reason-denuded crack-hoe spouse or a vindictive ex at a divorce-proceeding!
Last edited on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 07:48 pm by
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3598 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 12th, 2006 08:15 pm |
|
Honesty is inconvenient
"Men are so simple," wrote Machiavelli, "and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will never lack dupes." In a democratic age, with the public stupefied by television, with myths in place of facts and ideology in place of moral ideas, politics necessarily becomes a competition in mass corruption, with each party attempting to win public support by avoiding or twisting the truth in accordance with plausible and serviceable fictions. Under such a regime, honesty is inconvenient. - J.R.Nyquist
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21st, 2006 12:43 am |
|
Yep. An here is another inconvenient truth that the Drive-By Media is struggling to ignore. Diligently I say, trying to avoid reporting because they are so busy trying to help al Queda do damage control on the Zarqawi killing, by giving total coverage to the torture/murders of two American soldiers as what the media itself has started calling "payback" for killing Zarqawi. The anti-Bush media is trumpeting the killings as "Bush's fault" , so they don't want to hear about any more progress in the war itself. They are looking only for reports of progress in the War on Bush and conservatives, not progress in the War on Terror.
For those of us who are not rooting for al Queda-in-Iraq or trying to spread and promulgate fear and despair about the battle for democracy there, more profound evidence that the so-called "insurgency", (which is really more like an invasion of opportunistic terrorists bent on recapturing the billions in oil revenue they used to have coming in through their secret alliance with Saddam Hussein) is, as VP Cheney suggested earlier this year, "in it's death throes".
When command-level operatives hit the battle field, as have the animal Zarqawi and now, the religious emir of al Queda in Iraq, Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, and then they die, it's a sign that they are desperate. The commanders are going into the field and putting themselves at risk because they have to, plain and simple. If it wasn't a necessity, they wouldn't have done it.
Obviously morale in the ranks of the terrorists is collapsing- money and resources are becoming more scarce every day for the terrorists, while pressure from the general population and the Free Iraqi government increases. Each new cellphone that goes operational is one more potential anonymous tip that can be called in to receive a handsome reward - and another terrorist's head on a stake.
This time the Free Coalition got what amounts to the Global #5 , senior-level Cabinet Minister al Queda operative - privy to both Zarqawi's echelon and Zawahiri/Bin Laden's network. Now like his boss, he is dead, along with another general who was with him in the vehicle that got incinerated. I would imagine that being burned alive is only slightly less horrifying, and probably more-painful than being beheaded, so there is some moral symmetry to the back-and-forth.
By torturing captured American soldiers, all the terrorists do is give the 'Crats and the leftist Drive-By media more rope to hang themselves as traitors rooting for the enemy, and make the Marines and other military hunting the terrorists even more resolute and focused in their determination to avenge their comrades. Making the Marines angry is counter-productive at the local level, if effective at the propaganda level.
If anyone is to blame for the constant torture/murders, it's the Mass Media, who report every one in painstaking detail and trumpet them for al Queda, to every corner of the universe. Al Queda is performing for their attention because they know that the more horrible or destructive the terrorist act, the greater support they will get from the media in amplifying it's propaganda value. The torturing might have stopped if the Mass Media reported it differently- say, as a sign of barbarism, rather than of being, "powerful and terrible evidence of the failure of the War in Iraq". And the media use the excuse of "simply reporting the news", but we can see that obviously some news (horrible acts by terrorists) is more "newsy" than others (the extermination of another al Queda senior leader in Iraq)...
Why was so much more attention given to the beheading of two of our brave soldiers, than the neutralization of still another cabinet-level al Queda operative? Obviously, the Mass Media news producers are still supporting the terrorists and will continue to do so, while genuine patriots continue to do the dirty work of actually defending freedom and supporting the military in it's mission to eradicate international terrorist networks.
The media pumps out the propaganda while safe at home, while the soldiers, whose mission the leftist spit upon with open disdain, are taking the worst hits. These hits - from the enemy within and without, have the leftist Mass Media doing cheerleading for al Queda with everything but pom-poms on the sidelines.
The panic about Iraq becoming a victory, of the leftist Mass Media seems to be increasing as the sand in the hour glass slips slowly away for al Queda-in-Iraq and their supporters. The leftist Mass Media and al Queda are both losing their mutual War on Bush and international conservatives, so perhaps they may console each other.
If this really was the American Civil War, the Coalition was the North and the terrorists the South, Robert E. Lee(Zarqawi) was just killed, Andrew Jackson and his staff(Zawahiri/UBL) withdrew to secret dwellings far from the battlefield, and Grant and his generals(Sanchez/Caldwell/Casey) are making their way through Dixie just about now.
No, I wouldn't bet on al Queda-in-Iraq to defeat the Coalition of Free Nations or the newly-formed Free Iraqi government security forces (which number about 200,000 Iraqi soldiers and growing daily). The odds in Vegas are heavily with the Coalition winning that conflict.
In fact, the Iraq phase of the World War on Terror is going so badly for the terrorists, that by November, John "FlipFlop" Kerry will probably have flipped still again, and will be bragging about how he voted against funding the Iraq War, before he voted for it. Or was it the other way around...? He'll need to check with the Drive-By Media to determine what his opinion is supposed to be that week...
And look at it from the view of al Queda, at least two and a half more f*cking years of the god*mn George W. Bush in charge of the American military.
Even if al Queda gets it's Christmas present and see a pacifist Democrat (aren't they all?) elected president in 2008 (may God forbid), by the time that happens, al Queda-in-Iraq may well be a only a memory of woulda', coulda', shoulda'.
Last edited on Wed Jun 21st, 2006 01:18 am by
|
Current time is 10:52 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
