View Full Version : Faux News: Iraq civil war is a GOOD thing
TrailBate
February 26th, 2006, 07:13 PM
tomorrow on Faux: Nukes smuggled through UAE ports is no big deal, and low presidential approval ratings prove Bush is God.
kernel crash
February 27th, 2006, 08:50 AM
Actually the caption is quite different than you would have us believe. It is asking the question "could" it be a good thing. Not stating that it is a good thing. Which begs the next question. Why are you sitting in front of the TV (FOX News) with camera ready?
catbbq
February 27th, 2006, 09:35 AM
Civil war sure didn't work out for the U.S. did it? Then again, there are probably several people that would disagree.
In fact, I doubt you find many short of some wackos who would disagree.
Sometimes you have to have war to get quick results. Sometimes it works.
Mr_Cheeze
February 27th, 2006, 09:37 AM
Yea, you seem to watch an awful lot of Fox News for someone who despises it so much. Most people watch programs that they prefer. I hate all of those talking heads shows, doesn't matter what channel they're on. Except for maybe Meet The Press. Aside from what uber-biased lefty Ariana Huffington thinks of Tim Russert, there is a news program with some relevancy and credibility.
Slider
February 27th, 2006, 09:50 AM
Civil war sure didn't work out for the U.S. did it? Then again, there are probably several people that would disagree.
In fact, I doubt you find many short of some wackos who would disagree.
Sometimes you have to have war to get quick results. Sometimes it works.
OK, I am missing something.
First, how does the Civil War compare to the sectarian warfare in Iraq? You think the current Iraqi government can mount an effective campaign to defend itself? Seems more likely to decend into chaos to me, with no resolution other than more death.
Second, you are saying the civil War was a good thing???? We lost more Americans than in any other war, by a long shot. It took decades to rebuild the country. We came very close to dividing the nation. How was that better than any peaceful resolution?
Slider
TrailBate
February 27th, 2006, 09:58 AM
I watch Faux news to remind myself how mentally retarded the other side is.
off piste
February 27th, 2006, 10:22 AM
I read this forum to remind myself how mentally retarded both the left and the right is.....
As if there's any difference when you get right down to it.
Slider
February 27th, 2006, 10:41 AM
I watch Faux news to remind myself how mentally retarded the other side is.
It is actually good for a laugh now and then, until you realize how many people take it seriously.
Slider
TrailBate
February 27th, 2006, 01:17 PM
Liberals are retarded like the Rain Man, Republicans are retarded like they guy that works at McDonalds with the big colored sunglasses.
off piste
February 27th, 2006, 01:52 PM
Ok, you got the liberal part pegged, but you're off on the republican. Here's a republican:
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/tfgumby.gif
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/brain.wav
Mr_Cheeze
February 27th, 2006, 08:00 PM
http://www.seanet.com/~rod/images/StuartSmalley.jpg = Liberal
http://uplink.space.com/attachments/344129-church_lady.jpg = Conservative
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/sports/jesse-ventura/jesse_ventura_boa.jpg = Independent
Jesse For President '08
off piste
February 27th, 2006, 08:19 PM
;D ;D ;D
I like the Jessee inclusion, but he's missing the bong in one hand and the toy gun in the other. Besides that, Beeee-U-tee-full!!
TrailBate
February 28th, 2006, 04:48 PM
50 more Iraqi's killed last night.
"There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring 'em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. “ - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003.
kernel crash
February 28th, 2006, 05:07 PM
"50 more Iraqi's killed last night."
Iraqi's were dying before we got there and I suspect plenty more will die after we leave. So what's your point Trail Bait?
TrailBate
February 28th, 2006, 08:03 PM
"50 more Iraqi's killed last night."
Iraqi's were dying before we got there and I suspect plenty more will die after we leave. So what's your point Trail Bait?
Iraqi's were dying before we got there? brilliant. just brilliant.
kernel crash
February 28th, 2006, 10:28 PM
You could throw a dart at a world map and I guarantee that people would be dying there. So again I have to wonder what's your point?
TrailBate
March 1st, 2006, 09:47 AM
You could throw a dart at a world map and I guarantee that people would be dying there. So again I have to wonder what's your point?
So we can invade anyone, anytime, and kill everyone, because they were dying anyway? good grief. Absolutely moronic argument.
So we've gone from WMD's, ties to Al Qaida, spreading democracy, and freeing the Iraqi people to "eh, they were dying anyway."
In other news, from the Stars & Stripes:
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay "as long as they are needed."
Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately." Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.
The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was "to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks." Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.
...
In terms of current operations, 80 percent of those polled said they did not hold a negative view of all Iraqis because of the ongoing attacks against coalition military forces.
More than 43 percent of those polled said their equipment, such as Humvees, body armor and munitions, is adequate for the jobs facing them, while 30 percent said it is not.
Mr_Cheeze
March 1st, 2006, 10:05 AM
It really doesn't matter what 72% or 80% of forces in Iraq think. Their jobs are not to think but to follow orders.
TrailBate
March 1st, 2006, 10:48 AM
It really doesn't matter what 72% or 80% of forces in Iraq think. Their jobs are not to think but to follow orders.
So all the soldiers torturing and killing prisoners were......??
kernel crash
March 1st, 2006, 10:57 AM
"So we can invade anyone, anytime, and kill everyone, because they were dying anyway? good grief. Absolutely moronic argument. "
Look. Your original point was that 50 Iraqi's died last night and then you went on to quote a statement by George Bush that was almost 3 years old. I didn't see a connection between those two statements. Are you saying it was Bush's fault that those Iraqi's died? (Seems to me we have a lot of Iraqi's killing Iraqi's right now). My point was that Iraqi's were dying under the old reign of Sadam. Were you complaining about those deaths at the time?
kernel crash
March 1st, 2006, 11:21 AM
Also funny how you quote a poll of the military and then in the next breath make comments like "kill everyone", "all the soldiers torturing and killing prisoners". Think that's a little over the top?
slapheadmofo
March 1st, 2006, 11:28 AM
So, what exactly were they saying was the possible 'bright side" of a civil/sectarian war?
Mr_Cheeze
March 1st, 2006, 12:21 PM
It really doesn't matter what 72% or 80% of forces in Iraq think. Their jobs are not to think but to follow orders.
So all the soldiers torturing and killing prisoners were......??
Which soldiers were torturing and killing? You talking about the Gitmo stuff? If so, does that mean we half to rehash how we differ on the definition of torture? Let's not. There's enough beating of dead horses around here.
TrailBate
March 1st, 2006, 01:00 PM
"So we can invade anyone, anytime, and kill everyone, because they were dying anyway? good grief. Absolutely moronic argument. "
Look. Your original point was that 50 Iraqi's died last night and then you went on to quote a statement by George Bush that was almost 3 years old. I didn't see a connection between those two statements. Are you saying it was Bush's fault that those Iraqi's died? (Seems to me we have a lot of Iraqi's killing Iraqi's right now). My point was that Iraqi's were dying under the old reign of Sadam. Were you complaining about those deaths at the time?
The quote was of Bush saying "bring it on" and that we have the troops to deal with the security issue, which, apparently, we do not.
Thousands of Iraqi's have died, and continue to die, as a direct result of this administration's criminal incompetence.
TrailBate
March 1st, 2006, 01:02 PM
So, what exactly were they saying was the possible 'bright side" of a civil/sectarian war?
some stupid nonsense along the lines of "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet..."
TrailBate
March 1st, 2006, 01:24 PM
Which soldiers were torturing and killing? You talking about the Gitmo stuff? If so, does that mean we half to rehash how we differ on the definition of torture? Let's not. There's enough beating of dead horses around here.
While YOU may enjoy having glowsticks shoved up your butt, and you may like a handcuffed beating every once in a while, a few gunshot wounds, some dog bites. Maybe you like being killed every now and then? That's torture to most people
kernel crash
March 1st, 2006, 01:34 PM
Hey there'a a couple of guys in San Francisco that thinks that sounds like a good time.
Maybe you should join the peace corps seeing how concerned you are to the downtrodden and disadvantage. Me, if the glowstick shine a little light on the activities of the local assasins, then I say turn up the heat.
TrailBate
March 2nd, 2006, 12:05 PM
From Time.com
Power Struggle, Tribal Conflict Or Religious War?
Four experts shed light on what is really going on in Iraq
By NOAH FELDMAN, VALI NASR, JAMES FEARON, JUAN COLE
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Feb. 26, 2006
NOAH FELDMAN Professor of law at New York University and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
In looking at the brewing civil war between the two groups in Iraq, it's easy to assume that the cause is ancient hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the overwhelming majority of Iraqi history, Sunnis and Shi'ites have lived peacefully side by side, and numerous Iraqis are the children of mixed marriages. Instead we are witnessing in Iraq what occurs when government collapses and there is no state around capable of guaranteeing personal security.
What do you do when your family is in peril and you cannot turn to the government for protection? The answer is that you will take security wherever you can get it. You need to find some group that will be capable of keeping you safe, and that group had better be one that can count on your loyalty just as you can count on its protection. If you are a member of my ethnic, racial or religious group, then we share at least some basic bond, which may be enough to ensure our loyalty to one another. I need some assurance that you will have my back, and identity is better than nothing.
Sunnis and Shi'ites may find themselves joining militias or supporting denomination-based political parties even if they are not particularly pious and would much prefer not to. Something similar happened in the former Yugoslavia when its government collapsed with the fall of communism and nothing replaced it. Ethnic activists--call them identity entrepreneurs--will always form the core of the new militia. These radicals will emphasize symbols, like al-Askari mosque that was blown up last week in Iraq, and hope that followers will react by strengthening their commitments to the group itself.
Is it possible to break the cycle of violence that gets under way when identity groups move toward civil war? One answer is for an outside force to impose a solution. The killing did not stop in Bosnia or Kosovo until Western powers showed they were willing to bomb. But this approach is not viable in Iraq, where U.S. bombs came first and civil strife has followed. Instead the only way out of the violence is for Iraqis to realize that they have more to gain by negotiating a settlement between their groups than they do by allowing a full-blown brothers' war to break out.
Mr_Cheeze
March 2nd, 2006, 01:06 PM
Which soldiers were torturing and killing? You talking about the Gitmo stuff? If so, does that mean we half to rehash how we differ on the definition of torture? Let's not. There's enough beating of dead horses around here.
While YOU may enjoy having glowsticks shoved up your butt, and you may like a handcuffed beating every once in a while, a few gunshot wounds, some dog bites. Maybe you like being killed every now and then? That's torture to most people
Hmmm... which radical left website did you pull that crap from? I read the much disputed UN Gitmo report, which, I might add, was compiled by reporters who never actually visited the compound; there was nothing in that report as you described. Their definition of torture basically amounted to the force feeding of hunger strikers. Those bizastards!
Aside from that, the "torture" that Gitmo prisoners endured?
A detainee was forced to kneel so many times he was bruised a barber gave reverse Mohawks a female interrogator ran her fingers through a prisoner's hair and sat in his lap... because one man's sexual pleasure is another man's torture? a guard was charged with dereliction of duty and assault after a detainee assaulted another guard. After the detainee was subdued, the guard punched the prisoner with his fist. a guard was charged with assault after he sprayed a detainee with a hose when the prisoner allegedly tried to throw water from his toilet at him Another female interrogator wiped dye from a red magic marker on a detainee's shirt, telling him it was blood, after he allegedly spat on her Prisoners were told they would be sent to Egypt to be interrogated, where many of the detainees believed they would be killed. And they were forced to sit for hours in the freezing cold The infamous photographs depicting leashed prisoners Prisoners being forced to watch puppet shows! Time reported that interrogators did a number of unpleasant things to al Qahtani to get him to talk. These included shaving his beard, stripping him naked, ordering him to bark like a dog, depriving him of sleep -- to the music of Christina Aguilera, no less -- and violating his 'personal space' with a vulgar female interrogator.
Your turn to kick the horse.
GeepNutt
March 2nd, 2006, 03:37 PM
to the music of Christina Aguilera, no less --
OK, now we have gone too far......... ;D
TrailBate
March 3rd, 2006, 07:32 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.abuse.main/
"Some of the worst photos are of prisoners being sodomized by chemical lights, also known as "glow sticks," the sources said."
off piste
March 3rd, 2006, 08:33 AM
Could've been worse -- they might've been sodomized with a pound of bacon......
kernel crash
March 3rd, 2006, 08:52 AM
Oh the humanity...
Guantanamo man tells of 'torture'
"First they took my comfort items away from me. You know, my blanket, my towel, my long pants, then my shoes. I was put in isolation for 10 days.
"They came in and read out an order. It said if you refuse to eat, we will put you on the chair [for force feeding]."
He told how detainees were given "formulas" to force them to empty their bowels and were strapped to a metal chair three times a day, where a tube was inserted to administer food.
"One guy, a Saudi, told me that he had once been tortured in Saudi Arabia and that this metal chair treatment was worse than any torture he had ever endured or could imagine," Mr Odah said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4769604.stm
TrailBate
March 3rd, 2006, 10:13 AM
U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison
By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; A04
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."
Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.
kernel crash
March 3rd, 2006, 10:40 AM
I think I'll buy stock in Christina Aguilera CD's.
TrailBate
March 3rd, 2006, 11:07 AM
and glow sticks! They're probably made by Halliburton....
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.