Cool News
What Happens When The U.S. Military Won't Help Greengrass Shoot A Movie??
Merrick here...
The Moroccan Filmmaker sent in this note about & some images from the filming of Paul Greengrass' GREEN ZONE, which should hit theaters next year.
It's based on the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (available HERE) and is about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It's being adapted by Brian Helgeland (writer and/or director of PAYBACK & A KNIGHT'S TALE), and stars Matt Damon, Jason Isaacs and Greg Kinnear.
Here's The Moroccan Filmmaker's note, followed by images.
I stumbled this Sunday on the shoot of Paul
Greengrass's film 'Green Zone' in my hometown,
Mohammedia. I managed to take some quick pics although
it was not allowed and i talked to some English
members of the crew. The film is based on Rajiv
Chandrasekaran's book 'Imperial Life in the Emerald
City' who was the former Baghdad (Iraq) Bureau Chief
of the Washington Post.
The American Army refused to help the making of this
film because of its critical stance towards the
occupation of Iraq. So i was told that all the army
equipment used in this film belongs to the Moroccan
army, and that there will be also some CGI work done
for material that the Moroccan army doesn't have.
THE FIRST THREE IMAGES CAN BE EMBIGGENED!!!
Greengrass's film 'Green Zone' in my hometown,
Mohammedia. I managed to take some quick pics although
it was not allowed and i talked to some English
members of the crew. The film is based on Rajiv
Chandrasekaran's book 'Imperial Life in the Emerald
City' who was the former Baghdad (Iraq) Bureau Chief
of the Washington Post.
The American Army refused to help the making of this
film because of its critical stance towards the
occupation of Iraq. So i was told that all the army
equipment used in this film belongs to the Moroccan
army, and that there will be also some CGI work done
for material that the Moroccan army doesn't have.
-
+ Expand All
-
get it? I kid, I kid...
-
The United States military will own your ass!
-
Second! (and now third)
-
because recent history proves that Iraq war movies with a liberal slant are absolute blockbuster hits.
-
even though Helgeland is associated with the pool of bile that is Mystic River (and is therefore dead to me), it is worth noting that he adapted LA Confidential. not really fair to just put Payback and Knight's Tale up there as a reference for him, I don't think...
-
No reason to make that film, even less to shoot it with a cheesy shaky cam.
-
what the US military was asked to help with?
-
It would make no sense if they did.
-
Looks like Black Hawk Down. But all military movies look like that. Oh well.
-
And at the end of the Film Master Cheif takes off his helmet to reveal he is played by Matt Damon, who then says 'Maaaaatttt Daaaamon' to camera. Fade to Black.
-
Apr 22, 2008 10:39:09 AM CDT
Do we *really* need the same ol' political slugfest in every TB?
by gruntybear
I mean, come THE FUCK on.
-
was brilliant and needed, from beginning to end.
-
there's your starter. but in all honesty all i hear in that paragraph is warmongering power hungry evil humans are not helping because he's telling the truth. whatever. fucking humans. Acting like a bunch of children.
-
That's something you should care about.
-
...IS!
-
The reason why these movies aren't doing well is because they're being released DURING the Iraq War, you fucking piece of shit moron. How well do you think "The Deerhunter" would have played in 1971 instead of 1978? What about "Platoon" in 1972 instead of 1986? And so on and so forth. The point is: you're a fucking piece of shit, ArcadianDS. Anytime a film, book, or any art for that matter, reveals something about the nature of a controversial event that is driven by a right-wing nut job adminisration, it's "liberal". Hey man, I like right-wing flicks. I like the Dirty Harry movies, fascist as they are. Do you ever wonder why the great minds in history are all progressive i.e. liberal? Why are the worst presidents all republicans? What the fuck is your problem? Why do you hate America?
-
Wasn't it made by Bin Laden?
-
Seriously, though: the US Army provided human and logistical resources to both Transformers and Iron Man and those films have opposite views on the Military-Industrial Complex.
They're ok with Michael Bay filming their stuff like a car commercial, or Favreau treating them like irresponsible warmongers or clueless canon fodder; the army representatives don't fucking care as long as they're put onscreen in mainstream movies. Whether the movie is praising them or not, as long as there are famous actors, slick CGI or funny catchphrases it's still as good an infomercial for recruitment as America's Army or Top Gun were back in the day. -
You have no idea what you are talking about. al Qaeda in Iraq is something totally different than THE REAL al Qaeda, which is operating in Pakistan along the Afghani border without a peep from Bush's allies in the Pakistani government. The only time anything gets done is when the CIA and military take Obama's advice and goes ahead and attacks targets WITHOUT Mushareef's go-ahead...which both Bush and McInsane both said was a dumb idea. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you fucking dweeb. Why don't you read an intelligence report every once and a while...you might actually learn something. Or wait, is that more "liberal" "anti-American" propaganda? You know, THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE? You cocksucker. See my previous post about why the Iraq War movies have "flopped". Is every single Vietnam movie "anit-American"? Because only the really unrealistic ones, which star Stallone and Norris, could be perceived as "pro-war". And I doubt it's because people don't like anti-Bush things, seeing as he's the most unpopular president IN HISTORY. Good god, I schooled your goofy, anus-licking, shit-eating ass.
-
in that article, and be dispacthed immediately to post its automated message: aint-it-liberal-news.com.
-
just like the brilliant United 93. Colonel Activity hit the nail on the head. Nobody wants to watch these films right now, regardless of the quality (though most so far have been pretty crappy).
-
I love to hear people jaw on and on about how the war in Iraq was about removing Saddam from power. Do you fucktards honestly believe that? Little Georgie got ahead of himself, drank the Koolaid Rumsfeld and Cheney were dishing out, and invaded based on shitty ass intelligence (which is becoming a US specialty). Then, when we realized we'd fucked up royally, they started singing this tune about "liberating the Iraqis from a dictator" bla bla bla. Please. Enough starry-eyed, flag-waving horseshit already. Our guys (and girls) are nothing but bullet sponges over there, and our bravest people are getting killed to prevent a civil war that is GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. Meh, who am I kidding? I'm arguing politics on aintitcool, never mind.
-
Apr 22, 2008 11:08:24 AM CDT
A message for those who are still trashing United 93.
by henry jones sr
Fuck off already.
-
http://tinyurl.com/47v9tg
-
Egads! That's the ticket to box office success. Why hasn't someone thought of that before?
-
Hoo boy, it's gonna get hot in these talkbacks now. My comment for both sides of the argument? It's all about oil. Period. A friend of mine who's father was in the Pentagon told his son "If you want to know the reason behind any military operation in the Middle East, follow the oil. Every other reason is bullshit."
-
...as far back as 'Three Kings'. I don't think I'm the only one, either.Personally, I don't think a movie site is the place for a political debate, although I'm still puzzled as to why we bombed the tar out of Iraq when most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.Over to you guys...
-
Apr 22, 2008 11:09:46 AM CDT
"What Happens When The U.S. Military Won't Help Greengrass Shoot
by godmars
Who cares?
-
Ever wonder why the bulk of suicide bombers come from our good "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Ever wonder what country Bin Laden is from? (I'll give you righties a hint...it's not Iraq!)
-
...for buying New York from the Indians. They're going old school up in here. Cuz datz how we do in deez talkbacks, son. We keep it real up in dis mug.
-
Fireproof, are you serious? I just choked on my tea from laughing!
-
I liked that movie. It was good. And so was UNITED 93. And BLOODY SUNDAY. That guy's a good director. Let's all just calm down, watch the movie, and then formulate an opinion. But, it's true, Iraq war movies thus far make zero money.
-
... another Iraq movie.
-
I must've missed that somewhere, Fireproof.
-
(1) The majority of movies made during WWII were commissioned by the United States military to drum up support for a war the public wanted nothing to do with because we had problems of our own...until Pearl Harbor. Comparing WWII to Iraq? Please, go kill youself, ass-hat. WWII was a just war (seeing as how the WORLD was banded together; where's our allies in Iraq?). You lose point 1...
(2) Clinton was the best president since FDR. How do I know? Because he presided over the biggest economic growth IN HISTORY. What did he get impeached for again? Getting a BJ? Man, you guys are a bunch of self-hating homosexuals, aren't you? For shame. Don't get me started on letting bin Laden go. Bush disbanded the CIA unit in 2005, you fucking terd. Read a book, choad-licker. Ever heard of Tora Bora? I'll help you out: we had bin Laden cornered, a request was made for extra Army Rangers/special forces, Bush wanted to ramp up the effort to get ready for Iraq...bin Laden gets away...awwww. You lose again, fuck-wad.
(3) The Iranian hostage crisis? Really? How does that give Iran fake weapons right now? You know, they don't have nuclear weapons, right? Where do you get your news, Sean Hannity? They discontinued their weapons program YEARS ago. I read it...um, where was that again? Oh yeah, AN INTELLIGENCE REPORT THAT BUSH CO. HID!!!! If you want to talk about presidents being pussies, why don't we discuss Reagan DOING NOTHING after the Marines barracks were bombed in Lebanon? What was that? Oh, you lost again? Go kill yourself, choader-boy.
(4) Lincoln would be a Democrat if he was alive today. What party gained a bunch of racists when the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 60s? Republicans (why do you think that the South votes repub?). Going back further, what party gained alot of racists when Lincoln was runnning with anti-slavery positions? Democratic. How does that work? Do you really think that Lincoln would be at home with the xenophobic, racist republican base? Doubt it. YOU LOSE EVERY POINT!!! Now go play with your pet gerbil. -
The reason why they're not doing well is because they're not very good to begin with. Redacted was like an afterschool special with its terrible acting. Cool concept, badly executed. This should be interesting because Greengrass is no Hollywood hack by any stretch of the imagination.
-
And he's a democrat. When the American Embassy was taken over by Iranian radicals and they kept our personel hostage(Thank you Ross Perot for getting some of the U.S. people out.) Carter stood by with dreams of chasing rabid rabbits and building houses. What he should have done was give them an ultimatum. 24 hours give our people back or we go in. After that, takeout their infrastructure; water, power, radio and tv stations with B-52 airstrikes then move in with ground troops. Every nation would have supported us because an attack on an embassy is an attack on sovereign soil. If he'd have acted immediately, we'd be paying $1.00 a gallon for gas now. Tops. That rescue they attempted was a fiasco. They should have pulled in a favor from the Isreali's, have their Mossad go in and get our guys. They knew the terrain and would have gotten the job done. Regardless, I liked Reagan and I liked Carter.Its not about political affiliations, its about who can step up to the plate and do the job.
-
United 93 is one of the best films i've ever seen. That is all.
-
Oh shit, I forgot, no oil there. I mean, fuck Africa. Poor hungry fuckers... What's that? No one here knows who Mugabe is? Okay.
-
You are the "Naked Gun" of the human race: a giant joke.
-
that are more historically accurate. You know, like Pearl Harbor and Transformers.
-
But on the whole Iranian Hostage thing in the 70s.... You guys do realize that Iran is a Shiite nation and al Qaeda is Sunni and they hate each other, right? One has nothing to do with the other. And Reagan did not win the cold war, you fucking idiot. Go suck Hannity's cock.
-
Is it giving weapons to Saddam or is it selling weapons to Iran to fund terrorists in Central America? Quick, Fireproof, make something up.
-
You really are a moron.
-
http://tinyurl.com/47v9tg
-
Reagan ended the Cold War? Another neocon catchphrase that just reeks of bullshit. The internal collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, not anything Reagan did. He just happened to be in office when the Communist system (which had grossly overspent itself in the space/arms races of the 1950s-1980s) collapsed under its own weight.
-
Apr 22, 2008 11:29:37 AM CDT
I care about that smoking hole in the ground in New York City
by renonevada2000
Which is why I am incensed that we invaded Iraq without finishing the job we started in Afghanistan. You remember that mission, don't you? Where we were going to get Osama Bin Laden, the religious extremist who planned the 9/11 attacks and wouldn't have anything to do with the secular government of Iraq? And I think you answered your own question about why Clinton didn't doi anything about bin Laden. He was too busy having to deal with a Republican Congress trying to impeach him over a blowjob while they were busy having affairs witheir barely legal assistants and pages or trying to pick up other men in airport bathrooms.
-
you're using facts! Knock it off!
-
were largely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan just made a speech and took all the credit. Its kind of like standing on an Ocean liner in front of a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished". Ya know whatem sayin', son? For reals yo.
-
Also watch American Idol...your point? Pussy... When did FDR try to appease Hitler? Is it when we kicked ass on D-Day? Damn that appeasement!!! NAFTA was pushed through by the REPUBLICAN HOUSE!!! Do you remember how they used to threaten to shut down the government if they didn't get their way? I suppose you don't. I'm surprised you figured out how to breath, coward, because you are so incredibly stupid I'm shocked that you can think hard enough to use your lungs. You should really kill yourself.
-
I went to a screening of Cusack's "War, Inc." which was probably one of the best war satires I've seen (although the ending of the movie does fall apart, albeit, I think intentionally), but afterwards he told us the film is only getting a limited release in LA and New York, and then going straight to DVD. Freedom of speech, etc. should just let these films be made. Same thing with "Three Kings", which is another really great movie all around.
-
...was going to fail sooner or later, sure, but as much as I disagreed with many of both Reagan's and Thatcher's policies, their reign and reinvigoration of Western liberal democracy hastened the collapse.
Fireproof is still an idiot though. -
why dont they just create what they need? they can make dinosaurs and flying men, but they cant make american military apparely and equipment?
-
and helmets.
-
lol - our methods might differ, but fundamentally I applaud your efforts
-
I didn't read all of it either D. Vader, but I did look it up on Amazon once.Actaully, I never got around to looking it up on Amazon, but I had thought about it.Actually, I never really got around to thinking about it either.Actaually, I don't even like reading.
-
Glasnost? Perestroika? Think they *might* have had a little more to do with it.. How could you not be anything but embarrassed by having Ronnie Regan as your president?
-
We don't want to go and get all creative in Hollwood, do we? Stop that nonsense!
-
It's one thing to not proofread your posts and have mistypings (guilty!), but if you want to maintain some credibility among the complete falsehoods you're typing here, intentional misspellings like "wimmin" probably won't help anyone here take your points too seriously.
-
...but before I relegate myself back to "Amused Observer" status, I wanted to restate that: 1) while not a bad president by any means, Reagan did very little to end the Cold War. 2) Iraq's nuclear ambitions were little more than saber-rattling to threaten its immediate neighbors, much like another nation that starts with letters "Ira_" 3) Liberals are not opposed to killing terrorists, we are opposed to tying down our military resources in an occupation of a country that was not a major force in the war on terrorism UNTIL WE MADE IT ONE. 4) As someone previously posted, the War in Iraq was more about Bush's screwball experiment to democratize the Middle East by force than nuclear weapons, oil, or personal vendettas against Saddam. Good day to you all...
-
Which I rarely do, but it said its not available. Oh well. I don't read Moveondotorg, I was quoting my college professor from years ago. You could take it up with him I guess, but he might resent being called a pussy with propaganda. I'm sure you'll have no trouble calling him that from behind your computer though.
-
Here are photos and video from the London part of the shoot which happened earlier this month: http://tinyurl.com/2mafrj
-
...tell me you didn't say that FDR "appeased" Hitler?!! Please tell me you didn't say that. Man, you swilled a whole gallon of Cheney juice this morning didn't you? BTW, Clinton would've had zero support, especially from people like you, if he'd even suggested going into Afghanistan after bin Laden and alQueda.Furthermore, there were plenty of war movies during WWII that were put out by Hollywood. Yup, that same Hollywood you and your kind are always going on about how unpatriotic "they" are. The difference is that was a declared war and FDR certainly knew how to rally the WHOLE country, not just Democrats. How many cabinet members has Dubya appointed who are Democratic? Oh yeah, The Great Uniter, I forgot. I'll be there on opening night to watch this just to see what it's all about...then I'll read the book.
-
anti-Iraq War films are box office poison.
-
Whopper?
-
We stopped selling them scrap and pig iron that they needed for their war effort. Remember, they had no beef with us, only the whole of Asia which they wanted to take over. We cut them off, so they had no choice but to take us on and get it. FDR knew they were coming and he let it happen because we needed to stimulate our economy(It was sluggish.)and get us officially into the war. Hitler signed the Axis pact with Italy and Japan. Originally, he did not want to go up against the United States. The Japanese made the Nazi's look like choir boys with the Rape of Nanking, the Death March On Bataan, the P.O.W. tortures and places like Camp 731. After reading what they did there, you don't feel so bad that we nuked them twice.
-
Thats your proof that Reagan ended the cold war? Thats the idiot's perception of how the Cold War ended. Reagan says to Gorbachev, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall", and Mr. Gorbachev says, "Oh shit, why didn't you say so earlier." You're funny, Mr. Fireproof. And props to Mr. Nice Gaius for the Burger King line, that was sweet.
-
I think these vile insults haven't been thrown yet in this talkback. Just wondering if it will ever happen... a civil, mature politcal debate on this site without the name-calling (although it is funny sometimes). Also interesting to see which side usually throws the first lewd insult. Peace-out!
-
made everyone poor
-
Why should the US government help a film that underminds their objective? This film will loose a ton of money just like all the other anti-war films of recent.
-
I am a vet of both Afghanistan and Iraq, I was a Warrent officer, flying a UH-60 through over a year in both places. The boys I lift ticketed didn't all come back, and I took a few out in bad shape. Iraq is better now than it was. The people on the ground tell us that in person time and again, we have done far more to help them than them to hurt. I stand by that.
I know I did good there. I helped not only our boys but Iraqi civilians and even extremists who were wounded. I dare say most of them would not have returned the favor to me had it been reversed. And I am at peace with it. It does need to end at some point. I am confident it will. There will always be an American precence there, just as we are still in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, so too will be in Iraq and Afghanistan at least in some capacity for a while to come.
As for politics; let us all remember the political extreme of either side is just as dangerous as the other. Extreme Right will lead to Theocracy, and facism. Extreme left will lead to Communism and total involvement of the government in our daily lives.
Extreme Right: Iran, Theocracy, Facism.
Extreme Left: Russia, Communism, a cog in an ever expanding governmental machine.
Neither is right or better than the other. We need more middle ground. -
Yeah, I'm sure Hirohito took all his marching orders from FDR and Hitler. By all means, go eat lunch, then come back and Google some more "geo-politics" stuff since you obviously don't have a mind to actually think about what you're reading.
-
Gotta love how Fireproof completely dodged the fact he posted a 15 year old's copypasta as the definitive answer for why we invaded. Or that his article demonstrating how indispensable Reagan was to the USSR's demise quotes all of two people and one of them doesn't even really agree. Good times.
-
There's a saying about the continent being tilted on its side and all the trash flowed down to the west coast. Hollywood is home to a lot of deviates, deviates with values that have nothing in common with most Americans, deviates in the position of deciding what films get produced and what agenda they are going to promote and what ideals they are going to suppress. True, Hollywood made a lot of movies in the WW2. A different breed at the helm, that’s for sure. And it had nothing to do with WW2 being a 'declared war' (that's the most bogus argument ever. The ONLY reason the UN didn't support America in its efforts in Iraq is because so many corrupt officials were making so much money on the oil-for-food scam that they did everything possible to protect Saddam. Koffi Annan's own son was well entrenched in the corruption. If it wasn't for the UN's abject corruption they would have supported Saddam's removal and the mess in Iraq wouldn't be anything like it has become and twits like you wouldn’t be going around whining 'undeclared war, undeclared war".
So, you’ll be there opening night to watch this just to see what it's all about...then you'll read the book. And that’s something to be proud of?
-
Gremlins 2 had Christopher Lee! It beats the first Gremlins hands down!
-
Not "deviates." I wouldn't correct except you said it like 12 fucking times.
-
I'm for that as well. I had no problem with Bush until he tried to sell Iraq. Afghanistan and Pakistan was were bin Laden was, and that's where we bolted. And I don't doubt that Iraq is "better". And I don't doubt that the people are grateful. But that wasn't why we were supposed to be there. Bush and Co. linked Saddam and bin Laden to the public. If we wanted to liberate people from warlords, there's about a dozen or so African nations in need of help. Just look at the PNAC website and tell me that Bush had is cronies haven't been underhanded little beasties....oh, and you can support the troops and still hate Bush; if not, then I guess almost 70% of this countries hates the troops.
-
Try to think of one moment in one movie that didn't portray Iraq soldiers as just this side of the Manson family. The military should tell them to fuck off until they stop smearing our troops as the source of all evil.
-
Apr 22, 2008 12:46:26 PM CDT
On the ground meaning the Iraqi people themselves and our troops
by nerosday
I wish people in the news and media would talk to them both more.
-
Please try to defend the last 7 years of 2 wars instead of slamming the left, as if they have been running the country for these years.
We have a just war in Afghanistan that now is falling apart and an unjust war in Iraq that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Try defending your position instead of pretending we've had a Dem president and Congress for all these years -
"Hi, I'm Pete Brownbark and I'd like to shoot with you..."
-
I know what you're saying. I'd like to hear more from the troops, too. I have plenty of friends and family who have been in the military, and I like hearing what they say over what Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, etc. say.
-
A few million dollars and set fire to it, and make a film of that. Oh, wait. He is.
-
Black Hawk Down?
-
On a $25m budget. I'm just saying . . . Paul Greengrass also went on the Rush Limbaugh show to promote United 93. Thought I'd mention that, too. Left-wingers hate the right-wing attack machine . . . until they think they can promote something and make some money.
-
Apr 22, 2008 12:58:45 PM CDT
Why blame/congratulate a President on the economy
by shut the fuck up donny
when the last time I checked the economy was run by free markets? I refuse to few tax increases/tax cuts and some monkeying around by the Fed really makes a damn difference.
-
Sorry about the mispost.
-
And we're still in Iraq. And I thought they were going to lower gas prices, and instead, they've gone up. What happened with that?
-
I understand the issue of staying, but the terrorists, would have issue with us either way. Most of those in Iraq are not Iraqis, they are Syrian, Iranian, and especially Suadis, and oddly enough eastern Europeans like Chechnyans. There is only a small contengent of true Iraqis fighting us there. I just can't conscience leaving them in the cold. People say we are influencing their government and we are, especially economicly. But the influence these outsiders would bring would come at the end of a gun. I met too many good people there to leave them to that. I would re-up if it came to that. And do remeber we were in Saudi originally at the request of the Kingdom. Osama has issue with both the US and his own government.
-
If you desire "balance" you just have to try and look at the situation with an objective eye and pick one side of the see-saw, as depressing as that might sound. Planting yourself in the center only takes your opinion out of the equation, and your ass WILL end up sliding down onto one of the sides eventually.
-
I didn't know Greengrass was an American. Interesting...and the "democratic congress"? Uh, what was there majority again? How many seats? How many vetoes has Bushed signed? This is strictly Bush's game, willis. Don't be willfully stupid...it's unbecoming.
-
Why have a slugfest about this movie? Let 'em keep making movies critical of our armed forces and policies and keep watchin' em bomb bigger than an IED.
Noone will watch it as we can watch the news every day to get the basics that war is bad, our military is evil, our policies and president monstrous, etc etc.
Not that I agree...but let Soros and his Lib buds keep pouring money into box office bombs. Warms my heart. -
Physician, heal thyself.
-
49 republicans, 49 Democrats, 2 independents...one of whom is that weenie Lieberman. Quite the majority, eh willis?
-
It's their money. They should get through it down a blackhole, repeatedly, if they want to.
-
Well, I'm guessing that you know the truth, you're just acting stupid...as if it's your will to be stupid. You should stop that.
-
Without qualifiers of: except, of course, if our majorities are slimmer than we are expecting. A lot of this stuff was supposed to be cleared up after the first 100 days. According to Nancy Pelosi, anyway, after the election results were in. And 233 vs 202 in the house . . . oughta be able to get something done. If they were serious. If it wasn't all political posturing.
-
Now, they get blocked because they always need 60 votes to pass anything, they can't even debate the war without that threshhold.
And I'm still waiting for that wonderful defense of Bush without FoxNews-type bashing; tell me how 8 years were the best years of our lives.
Soros and his Lib buddies don't run this country, TCSailor.
-
I also didn't know that Soros was a movie producer. Interesting. Is it that you're stupid, or is it that you're retarded? What movie, besides "Redacted", which was a fictionalized version of real events, have made the military "evil"? Is is "Stop-Loss"? Is that it? Or "In the Valley of Elah"? Is that it? Holy shit, you're full of it.
-
If being stupid is defined (as it apparently is, in your dictionary) as not marching in lock-step with your predictably tedious talking points, then I'm a big fat idiot.BTW, I don't believe anyone suggested that Paul Greengrass was an American. Certainly, I didn't. And I'm 100% correct about the promises that members of the Democrat majorities made (and numerous political action committees on their behalf), but it doesn't surprise me that 100% factual accuracy is merely "stupid" to a liberal. There are big, sweeping, emotional things at stake here!
-
You need a super majority in the Congress, pal. Otherwise, King George can veto at will. Do you flunk American Gov't and Politics 101? Besides, the Dems have tried to push through spending bills with timetables but lil Georgie keeps on waving that veto wand.
-
Who needs support of the military when there's unbiased CGI?
-
I notice you keep sticking to documented facts to back up your opinions (which I happen to to agree with based on those same facts). Careful man, you may break AICN being this reasoned.
-
Let me educate you, my little turd polisher: we are still in Iraq because of Bush, not the Dems. They have tried to get bills through that set timetables. FACT. Gas has gone up because of OPEC and oil companies. The Dems couldn't do a goddamn thing about it. Neither could the republicans. Stop being an ass.
-
I'm not defending Bush (others may, but don't confuse them with me). He sort of got tax cuts right. Pre-emptive war? Wrong. Embracing Ted Kennedy's education bill? Wrong. Current stimulus nonsense? Wrong. Signing Campaign Finance Reform? Wrong. Open borders and amnesty proposals? Wrong. Medicare prescription drug benefit boondoggle/socialism? Wrong. While I completely supported his Social Security reforms, his administration mishandled that from the get-go, and nothing happened (sort of like the Democrats in congress on most liberal issues). I'm a conservative, but Bush hasn't been a particularly reliable conservative, from the beginning. And McCain is a Democrat in RINO's clothing. So, I'm not a big fan of the Republican party, period.
I'm still not entirely sure that I'm not going to vote for Obama. Put that in your hat and smoke it. -
to ever think the US military are Nazis, though there are fools out there who will portray us that way. Let people say what they want and think what they want. Its a free country and love them or hate them our military helps protect that freedom. I don't see anyone or any movie out there depicting us as monsters. Everything else is just different points of view or opinion based sometimes on personal feeling, or lack of understanding, sometimes over justification. I take no offense. Just so long as we aren't shown eating babies and sweeping through villages like mongols raping, burning, and killing all in our path. That would simply be too much.
-
Are you saying they were lying to me, and they knew it? Or that they just didn't know there's not a big buttong that says "lower gas prices" on the house floor?Nancy Pelosi says: "Why, I'm sure I saw one there before the election. Oh, those wascally Wepublicans!"Stop being an ass? That's a mirror, Colonel Activity! I'm over here.
-
Show soldiers eating babies. And eating Mongols.
-
I didn't say anything about your party affliation. I just said you were full of shit. The biggest hosers are the left-wing 9/11 conspiracy nuts and the right-wing "MEXICANS ARE TAKING OURRRJAWWBS!" rednecks. Also, anyone who defends Bush.
-
that would be cool too, eh?
-
don't ever watch Redacted then. It depicted Americans soldiers stopping just short of eating babies.
-
Are you saying the Democrats didn't know that when they promised to get us out of Iraq? Or that the promise was, in fact, a nuance statement of general principle, rather than any sort of commitment they were making to their voters? Or did they not know that the president can veto legislation?
-
Finally, we do discover a WMD in Iraq. And it's not what we thought. Not at ALL what we thought."Sergeant, looks. It's a baby. How could it possibly still alive? Gosh, it's cute. Wait. Are those teeth?"
-
Apr 22, 2008 1:29:15 PM CDT
I haven't seen it yet. I'm a teacher now so I haven't had a lot
by nerosday
maybe in the summer though
-
Out of their minds.
-
Apr 22, 2008 1:31:38 PM CDT
Colonel Activity: "I just said you were full of shit."
by kevinwillis.net
What an awesome argument. You've convinced me that you are great at telling people they are stupid, full of shit, and retarded.
Keep up the good work! -
Or Planet Terror? Those are the ones I still haven't gotten around to seeing. Dammit.
-
emma watson shows bush
-
well it was only a matter of time before someone did
-
pray it's a merciful end. That Darkseid doesn't rip your balls off.
-
A pox on the guy.
-
Ah shit. Not again...
-
My son is driving me nuts about it, and I'm a fanboy from way back so I'll be there.
-
(1) Iraq movies do poorly. (2) Everyone knows the "war" is going poorly. No great truths are being revealed by the left; no nefarious facts are being hidden by the right.
-
FDR knew he had to get us into the war. The AVG(American Volunteer Group-The Flying Tigers) were already in China under the command General Chenault being paid by General Chung-Kai-Shek. Try flying a DC-3 over the Burma Hump at 18 years old with no defense and having a group of Zero's shoot you down. The U.S was not at war with Japan though. The U.S. was suppling the majority of iron and steel to fuel the Japanese war effort. The Dutch and French rubber plantations were doing the same supplying the U.S. until the Japanese took them over. Some was smuggled out over the years, but not much and at a cost of many lives. When the U.S. cut Japan off for good, they had no choice but to go after what they wanted. The Imperial Japanese Ambassadors left a day early and destroyed their code books and correspondence in Washington, D.C. FDR knew six hours in advance that the Japanese fleet was on their way to bomb Pearl Harbor and he let it happen. Not because he wanted to, but because he needed to get the U.S. into the war for economic reasons. Had the Pacific Fleet been alerted, it would have been a different ballgame. Our pilots were better than theres, but they had better planes(P-40's vs. Zero's.). Both navies were exceptionally strong. Had the flight of B-17's been able to land at Hickam Field, refuel and rearm, they would have crippled most of the Japanese fleet.Still, we did manage to get two P-40's off at Pearl Harbor to go after them. That is a true fact. History would have been different in the Pacific had Pearl been alerted.
-
Michael Scheuer (a former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit in Afghanistan) writes in "Imperial Hubris" that the war on Iraq is based on politically motivated false intelligence from exiled Iraqi's who were looking to overthrow Saddam. The CIA told the White House that it was bad intelligence, but they refused to believe it. He calls the invasion of Iraq "a sham causing more instability than it prevents".
At one point in time American forces had Bin Laden and most of the remnants of Al Qaeda trapped in a valley in Afghanistan. However because American had started pulling forces out of Afghanistan in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, the US did not have sufficient troops in place to finish the job and Bin Laden et al escaped into Pakistan.
He also says that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda feel they are fighting a defensive war against "imperialist America" due to America's backing of "brutal and corrupt" Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Quatar, pre Gulf War I Saddam in Iraq, pre revolution Shaw of Iran) and Israel. If American stopped giving aid to these Muslim dictatorships and Israel and pulled all the US troops out of their bases in these countries, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would no longer have a reason to fight.
I have read that Bin Laden is happy that the US has invaded Iraq, as it has succeeded in 1) being a huge propaganda victory for Al Qaeda in the Muslim world and 2) has replaced an anti Iran anti Al Qaeda anti Shia Sunni Iraq goverment (Saddam) with a pro Iran (and more inline with Al Qaeda thinking) Shia Iraq government elected by the dominant Shia population in Iraq.
As for the overthrow of the Shaw in Iran, due to the shift in CIA emphasis from intelligence collected on the ground to intelligence collected electronically in the 1970s, in a backwater nation like Iran they never saw the revolution coming, even when there was widespread rioting in the streets. As a result, by the time the CIA was aware of what was happening, it was too late for the US to do anything to stop the overthrow of the Shaw. It had nothing to do with the Carter administration as they were cut down at the knees by a blind CIA.
-
in less than a decade whether a liberal or a conservative is in power. So "gather your rosebuds while ye may," buckos."Peak oil," folks. Google it and prepare for the end of the civilized world. Better yet, go here: http://tinyurl.com/6n3c4x and scroll down a bit.
-
Are we headed for the end? http://tinyurl.com/59zsjy
-
...before I write something off, I want to see what it's about first. Can you tell me right now if this is going to be a good/bad movie? Have you read the book to which it refers? As for these deviates you seem so familiar with, are you saying there are none between, say, Boston and Lake Tahoe? Really, they’re all in Hollywood?The point about a declared war is that the entire country was behind the effort and it was largely due to the FDR administrations efforts. You can say the word “bogus” all you want but the facts are certainly there. Have you heard every “bogus” argument so that you can actually say it’s the most bogus? Are you saying there are no people in Hollywood capable of making an objective movie about war? That’s both an absolute and all encompassing statement…how omniscient you are! Declared war as in the US Congress declaring war. Who said anything about the UN besides you? Goodness, taking the high road right off the bat, huh? So, you know me well enough to call me names, eh? Ah yes, real bad-assed Internet courage on display. You really know how to discuss something don’t you? 9000rpm? More like 2mwy (2 miliradians per year). And, yeah, I’m proud of everything I do except maybe engaging Internet know-nothings like you.
-
have done nothing but fuck up from the first day that dipshit was in office. Can we please have an IQ test and a minimum score as a requirement for running for any government job? Bush has that empty headed look in his eye almost all the time anymore.
-
most and I'd say 80% come home fine.
Few have the full blown PTSD, the way the movies love to make them majority of vets seem to have.
I have nghtmares sometimes, i crash a UH-60 once, its not something you forget, Ive been shot at plenty, Hit power lines, even had a couple guys fall out the back, at low levels thank God. I see that stuff, and snippits of things. Alot of it is what ifs. Worse case things, my actions or failure to act getting people killed. That sort of thing. fortunately I was never in that position. But you think about it.
They medical guys always seem to have it the hardest. even more so than infantry men. -
I know its not saying much, but its little things. You seem muted. It is from always being "on" I think. You burn your candle out, some if that makes any sense.
Most come home and come out of the service after a few years and, like me do something completely different. I didn't want to fly anymore. Things like that.
Some come home and have a hard time, they drink alittle more, they act a little numb, they don't relate to softness, or quiet like they used to. Some want nothing, but that. Do some change, yeah. are some the same, yeah. Is it awful and are we all crazy or do the majority of us that come how become radically different? No. -
I'm watching over a class of kids taking a test and trying to keep one eye on them and type.
-
I wasn't being a smart-ass or critical of the troops, I was just pointing out that a film had been made depicting American soldiers like raping, killing, pillaging, etc... and then never mentioned that they were punished.
-
the (sigh) was just that someone did make a movie like that finally.
-
That's right. I am also a badass, as you will see. I know things, man. I learned them in school, ya fag. I am so knowledgable, that I know secret hidden facts about history that no one else on this talkback knows. I have read political commentary that will blow up your fucking head. The sheer weight of my conviction is so fucking strong, it is destined to change this country forever. Anyone else's response to my post will be met with derision - as it serves that you are 1. Stupid and uneducated 2. Unamerican with questionable ties to unsavory political machines both domestic and abroad 3. Unaware of just how much carnage your side has caused us in blood and treasure 6. Clueless about how many lives are saved by the policies I support 6. Are probably a pussy, sheep, whiner, or homosexual. But . . . enough about you, this post is about me, me me me ME, Mother fucker!! I AM so badass I will shove a cannon of rightous indignation down you peehole and pull my mightly trigger bomb of absolute truths until there is nothing left but my own heroic form, arms raised in victory on a smoking mountaintop of personal glory. Yeah! yeah, yeah! Oh crap . . . wait a sec . . . is this? Ah shit. This is wrong forum. I was looking for the Transformers 2 forum. Sorry everyone.
-
No one wants to see these Iraq movies because we have to see this crap all day long on the news. People go to the movies to escape the shitty reality of living in the USA under an idiot warmonger, not be reminded of it. Bombs away...
-
Use your fucking grey matter Hollywood. People don't want to pay to be reminded of Bush's massive fuck up. We hear about it every day in the news.
-
Why would the military support a film against it? It would be like Exxon sponsoring Greenpeace. All business. Kind of like how Robert Redford and Cruise have all but wiped out the revived United Artists because of their bad business decision(s). Movies--TV-- in the end, it has to be what makes money.
That said, I was involved in Hunt For Red October. THe military cooperation was incredible. The actors and crew were great. THe stars were taken out on a real boat for orientation. Sean Connery-what you see is what you get. Nice man. Alec Baldwin was fantastic with the sailors. Scott Glenn smoked---continuously. -
Anyone heard a hint if REAPER is renewed?
-
Yeah, when they came out-- long before the war in Iraq. I'm talking about the Rendition-Redacted-Lions For Lambs-In the Valley of Elah wave, which have all been what I said.
-
Darkseid IS coming. I like saying "Darkseid" like how rappers say "West sieeeeeeeeeeeed", you know like, Darkseieeeeeeeeeed"
-
When is Hollywood going to figure out that the majority of movie going Americans do NOT like anti-American, anti-US Soldier movies in a time of war (whether you are for it or against it). Examples: In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition, Stop-Loss, Lions for Lambs. All flopping wastes of film.
-
No matter what side of the divide you fall on you know your pretty much are going to be upset coming out either way and angrier. Nobody wants to pay for that. Unless its Star Wars.
-
"R-r-r-r-r-r-read m-m-m-m-m-m-my l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-lips. N-n-n-n-n-n-no n-n-n-n-n-n-n-new t-t-t-t-t-t-t-tax-x-x-x-x-xes."
-
by the pool and eating grapes under the palm trees?
-
They weren't in Iraq. They were in Oman or some shit.
-
Will be the part where the babies eat the Mongols. Come to think of it, that's the best part of any film.
-
I remember cause it had the most cringe worthy subtitle ever pop up on screen: Qater, 'THE MIDDLE EAST'. Derrrrr.... reallly? Sad part is I think some people in the audience I saw it with were probably like 'ohhhhh'.
-
Same towels, different desert.
-
I'm pretty sure that base was in Qatar (which the movie patronizingly identified as "Qatar - The Middle East"). Yeah, I watched Transformers, don't hold it against me.
-
They also loved Frank Zappa, who was certainly no Republican.
-
blindambition beat me to it.
-
who ignores the engineers' warnings and delivers sewage tainted water to the troops anyway?
-
Just pretend I was intentionally emulating Dubuyah's pronunciation.
-
I could've mistaken it for Qatar, Indiana.
-
. . . can agree on. Transformers simulanteously sucked and blew.
-
I thought they were in Decatur. Wottayaknow.
-
Especially the final gunfight where Jennifer Garner takes down the Sheikh right in the fucking skull.
-
/puppet voice
-
I just got No End In Sight via Netflix. Gonna watch it tonight after Dancing With Stars.
-
They didn't use the shaky cam. I'm guessing they were trying to emulate Bourne or Mann's Miami Vice, but the film was too polished to give it that guerrilla documentary look. The action/ chase sequence in last act was great though.
-
Apr 22, 2008 3:09:13 PM CDT
If anyone wants to know what kind of President Reagan was...
by mojorising74
You simply need to look at the country's deficit before going into the Reagan years and what it was coming out. Anyone can look like a great Dad burning through all his credit cards in a flash and pretending you're rich. But eventually you have to pay the credit cards back. The deficit started after World War 2 and continued to grow slowly but steadily with inflation. No US President could stop it. The national deficit went from $930 billion to more than three trillion between 1980 and 1990, the "Reagan years". Clinton brought the deficit back from three trillion dollars, to a ten trillion dollar surplus. Something no American president has ever accomplished. Forget FDR. He spent his presidency cleaning up his own errors in judgement. As a husband, Clinton may have been a failure. I don't know what his personal life with his wife was like. But personal life aside, Clinton was the greatest US president. Economically anyway. As far as letting Bin Laden get away? Anyone who's familiar with Richard Clark knows that all of the intelligence indicating Bin Laden's whereabouts was sketchy at best, the most likely source, the one who leaked the story, was hired on as a foreign correspondent with fox news. What a scoop! Clinton had also planned on invading Afganistan in the final days of his presidency, but didn't because he didn't want to sandbag the new president with a war. Had Al Gore been elected, he likely would have followed through with Clinton's plan to level Afghanistan. Instead, Clinton had Clark present his plan to the bush administration, a plan that was promptly ignored. Along with all other intelligence coming through Clarks office because he was percieved as "Clinton's guy". This can go on and on.
-
Team America where every location was shown as being 'x miles from America'. Are those things even called subtitles actually?
-
No matter the reviews, this one will wither and die at the box office. Give it up, Hollywood! We know what you think of "Bush's War," and we're TIRED of it!
-
A little girl sits in a swing, not swinging
A tear rolls down her cheek
"Where's daddy?"
Jaiger -
Nah, just fuckin' with ya. Love you guys.
-
Lebannon, anyone? (Actually, thank God we got out of there when we did - took the Israelis another couple of decades to figure it out. But hey, since the Bushes blame the Clintons for being "weak on terror" in the 90s ... why not blame Reagan for the 80s, too?)
At least you can say Reagan served his country ... as an actor. But the guy was so convincing at playing soldier, he'd convinced HIMSELF that he fought in WWII! Or at least he spoke in public about his memories of fighting in the war. Same diff. -
most of the time these days box office is opposite the quality of a film. Weren't the most profitable movie last year Transformers, Spiderman 3, and Shrek 3? Just saying.
-
Some of what you say is true: Japan was indeed pushed into the war with the U.S. They were indeed desperate - so desperate, that they thought they could take on the United States which dwarfed them in terms of industrial might. That desperation was a direct result of the Oil embargo. Not pig iron or scraps. However, you are completely wrong about the motives of the United States and FDR in allowing pearl harbor to be attacked. This is one of those canards - no lets call it what is, a lie and smear tactic, that was fostered by isolationists, and later adopted by the far right - Note I did not say conservative. Theer si absolutely no proof that anyone in the United States gov't would knowingly allow a foreign country to attack U.S. soil, and kill U.S servicemen. The United Sates was going to enter WWII - agaisnt Germany, we did not need to be drawn into a pacific showdown with Japan. Japan badly miscalculated, and perhaps hoped it's allies would pull resources away from Pacific. That war could have been prevented, but for the Japanese desiring an empire - without the means to run it.
-
Well part of it is probably because the american public is disengaged from the war. As or right now it isn't even the #1 issue in the upcoming election, even though it ties into the economy a great deal. Also, most of the good documentaries/movies on the Iraq War subject are hidden away in arthouse theaters, while these big budget hollywood fluff films are being spashed in 10,000 screens across America.
-
If you're not a fan of the Iraq War, get ready to be PISSED by No End In Sight.while most docs focus on the arrogance and greed, this one is ALL about the ignorance. Let me know what you think, we can talk tomorrow about the 22 year old girl that was in charge of traffic in Bahgdad.
-
High five, Paul.
-
I heard good things about No End In Sight. Thanks for the background info.
-
Good call - great movie.
-
Have you found a job yet?ZINGER!
-
No, it's not you fag!
-
You and gotham_night should get a room and see if you can't spawn even more uselessness.
-
It was manliciousness incarnate!
-
Sorry, pumpkin..My room card is full tonight. Your mom's coming over with some Boone's, knee-pads and a healthy mouth. Whoooooooooooo
-
WTF!!!
-
I recently saw This Film Is Not Yet Rated on a Talkbacker's rec. Not exactly a topic near and dear to my heart but very interesting. Now I know not to pay any mind to stupid ratings. What a con.
I also recommend The End of Suburbia. The title might be a little hyperbolic, but the doc is quite teh excellence. -
Well, mother will probably use the Boone's for your anal douching. But if she's bringing the knee pads, you won't last 2 seconds.Nice try though, Brafficles.
-
my anus will be clean enough after she tosses my salad...try and keep up, Sprinkles.
-
Another case today of spying uncovered - this time an Army Corps of Engineers guy passing nuclear secrets. Nice job, Bush, securing the homeland.
-
Those were really great movies Mr.Nice Gays. dumbass
-
Good one!
-
Not likely. You'll first pass out with that Boone's bottle firmly inserted in your rectum. And when you wake up, your wallet will be significantly lighter. That's how mother rolls!It's ok, Baffled. You can't think you've won everytime.
-
Clearly, Lost is better than Heroes! Wait... what talkback is this?
-
Well at least we both like Batman.
-
Holy shit that movie was great. Best thing was I knew so little going into it. Ed Harris was fantastic. That shoulda won a slew of Oscars.
-
Very interesting documentary that affirmed my worst suspicious about the absurdities that governed the MPAA. I hope he does a follow up piece though considering that by the end of the documentary it seems like they took the hint and tried to make things more reasonable.
-
Apr 22, 2008 4:19:12 PM CDT
"War, Inc." will be better: political commentary and Hillary Duf
by flim springfield
-
Apr 22, 2008 4:19:48 PM CDT
That's fine we obviously have different associates for 'great'
by blindambition238
And that wasn't a jab G_N
-
"A father, a son, a dildo ... all lead to a chocolatey pussy juicy time!"
- Harry Knowles, AICNews -
Agreed. Awesome. Ed Harris is the fucking man.
-
are you the same "Stevie Grant" from WWTDD.com? If so, your "loaf of bread" comment cracked me the fuck up - thanks
-
I would like a movie about the connection between the right-wing and FOX News. The little subplot about O'Reilly using a dildo on himself while sexually harrassing a female employee would be golden.
-
300 greased down male models running around in their underwear for 2 hours? G-A-Y. I'm convinced that everyone who loved it is deeply gay and deeply in denial.
-
But that don't make me gay!
-
Thats all there is to it. I liked NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but THERE WILL BE BLOOD was a work of sheer, epic, genius.
-
Theres one from 2004 and now on DVD called "Outfoxed". Never saw it though it seems pretty interesting if not slightly redundant since its not exactly that shocking.
-
Apr 22, 2008 4:32:16 PM CDT
it's good to see this TB has descended back to "movie fights"
by finky089
instead of political ones. Spiderman vs Transformers vs Dark Knight is obviously way more important. (actually it's way more interesting to me, anyway)
-
"Reagan's 'Tear Down This Wall" speech ended Communism" Bwahahahahahaha!
-
Getting hard during 300? I dunno, dude, thats kinda suspect. I guess it depends on what you were getting hard for. Like, were you with yer girlfriend and she was so turned on by the male models that she started giving you an impromptu hand job or something?
-
Yeah that's it!
-
Could poke an eye out with thems.
-
…but I have read my world history. In fact, I’d like to comment on a few of your items: Of course FDR knew the US would get involved in the war but to say he knew of the Pearl harbor attack ahead of time is sheer unproven speculation that, admittedly, may be good enough for a “Hollywood movie” but it’s simply not a historical fact. Neither is it a fact that any pilots flew DC-3’s over The Hump. They were C-47 (Army Air Corp version of the DC-3) and 46’s, to be precise (and later four engine bombers carrying cargo). The AVG did run up on some Zero Model 21 (easy to spot as they had the single collector exhaust pipe) pilots before Pearl Harbor but mostly the earlier IJN A5M “Claude” and Imperial Army KI-43 “Oscar” pilots. Their pilots were superb and before PH, could out fly any the US had, AVG included. It was Chenault’s tactics that saved the day though it certainly doesn’t diminish anything our brave pilots were able to do. Really threw the Japanese (not to mention the occasional Spanish Civil War ace/veterans the Soviets threw in the mix) for a loop and negated the benefits of their superior (at the time) aircraft. As for the Pacific Fleet, our F4F Wildcat pilots showed they could hold their own against the superior Jap pilots in the long fighting (after PH) of Guadalcanal. I certainly agree that had the US Navy been warned in time, the Pearl Harbor attack would’ve turned out differently. However, it could’ve also turned out that the Japanese had sunk our carriers which, fortunately, weren’t at Pearl. Let me guess, FDR sent ‘em away on purpose, right? Those unfortunate B-17 pilots didn’t have any defensive armament either (sitting ducks for the Zeke pilots) and the Battle of Midway showed that the US couldn’t hit a Jap ship using heavy bombers for love nor money. Anyway, sorry for the pedantic exercise but I’m still not sure how this ties in with the ludicrous idea of FDR appeasing Hitler.
-
plain and simple. Lena Heady was hot in it. If you are a girl or a gay male, then you probably enjoyed the half/mostly naked guys, too. But it was a fucking gladiator movie, pure and simple. It wasn't homophobic, it wasn't intended to be homoerotic (that's also something derived purely from the viewer's perspective, so check YOURSELF if you thought it was and you have a problem with that) and it wasn't meant to be fucking Ben Hur. If it succeeded in showing gladatorial combat in a stylized manner, then it fucking succeeded in doing as much as the graphic novel it was based on. Now, if that's not good enough for you, then your beef is with Miller, the graphic novel, and the studio that decided the flimsy storyline was enough to turn into a feature-length film. But, please, do continue to call each other fags and pussies over differing opinions on it. I know that what people do best on AICN.
-
last time I checked, there was no lock out period on how soon you could make a film about something that happened. If this war lasts 10 years, will it still be "too soon" because our guys will still be on the ground there? Come on. It's only "too soon" of somebody claims they are using "facts" when the facts aren't really out there yet. Like, if somebody made a film about the OJ murder and trial story before the trial was over, but they were goign to find him "guilty" in the movie anyway. THAT would be "too soon" b/c the facts weren't there to support it. I don't really know exactly what story this Greengrass movie will be telling, but unless it's jumping to a conclusion about something which hasn't happened or been proven yet it isn't "too soon."
-
i like morons who say if you like 300 you are gay. they are the same people that call people that make fun of gays homophobes.
-
The reason all these left wing wacko movies fail is that the sane public doesnt enjoy propaganda by a bunch of rich Hollywood nutjobs. These films are Michael Moore bias and most of America finds that distasteful. We all can enjoy a fair piece of entertainment but these hunks of cinematic junk are whine fests by an ideological group out of touch with 90% of America.
As for a critique on 20th century Presidents you dont get any worse then Carter, and lets talk about an impeached liar who lost control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and lobbed cruise missles at empty warehouses while Bin Laden plotted 9/11. Then there was the fact that he took money from the Chinese for military technology and money from more illegal sources then John Gotti. The only thing funnier than Clinton's absolute lack of accomplishments is that his ONLY accomplishment was NAFTA which his party hates...too say nothing of his personal disrepect for his wife, child, and the country.....if thats a good President then your mind is lost. The fact is, history is ALWAYS kinder to Republican Presidents--- with good reason---Either way...ill pass on the antiAmerican view of Hollywood as entertainment every time.... -
... for films about 9/11 and the Iraq War. Maybe in five to ten years after it's all over, but right now, we live with the reality of it every day. The last thing I want to do is go relive it in a movie theater. I agree with the earlier observation about United 93.
If I want reality, I'll go to one of the gruesome web sites and watch beheadings of Americans in Iraq. Otherwise, producers and writers can keep their "real stories about the war" films.
I'm sure in 50 years, that generation's Speilberg can do a remake of the Green Zone. For now, I could care less what Hollywood thinks. -
Um, slamming the troops and slamming the politics of the green zone are two different things, bucky. In fact, I can call George Bush a dry drunk, limp-wristed, cheerleader, Brokeback wanna-be draft dodger moron...and I'm not "slamming the troops." Or I can say "the green zone is fucked up" and not insult the troops. Crying everytime that someone points out Bush's fucked up policies and tying them to the troops...that's insult to the troops, but probably not slamming them.
-
that's what I thought when Bush got elected: "Another Bush? Too soon!"
-
I didn't have a problem with that, I just think its funny how gay it is, and how much everyone bends over backwards to pretend it isn't. Of course, I must be the raging closet homosexual for pointing out the obvious homoerotic aesthetic of 300. An aesthetic which, lets be fuckin' honest, exists in all gladiator films. Spartacus, anyone? "Do you like nymphs... or satyrs?"
-
Do you know anything that didn't come directly from Sean Hannity's ass?
-
Nixon? Hoover? Andrew Johnson? Harding? Bush I? Bush II? Are you serious? The only Democratic president that historians consider an unmitigated disaster is Buchanan.
-
Apr 22, 2008 5:05:54 PM CDT
Expelled Got 12% On RT Cause Intelligent Design Is BULLSHIT
by laserpants
Whereas Sicko and Inconvenient Truth (boring though it was) are based on actual facts and observable evidence, not mythology and theocratic neocon moonbat propagandist claptrap. NOBODY takes I.D. seriously as science. Its faith, and thats just fine and dandy, but it has NO PLACE in a science curriculum, because its not science, its religion. Period.
-
I forgot Pierce. He sucked, too.
-
I've seen your other posts around here. But I don't hold it against you.
-
Apr 22, 2008 5:09:06 PM CDT
"Inteeligent Design"- Quick call the Flying Spaghetti Monster
by puddleglum
what a fuckin' crock.
-
I only hope you carry all this vindictive rhetoric into your respective polling booths next election.Change the world, brothers...
-
Is rejected as science because it relies on unquantifable variables i.e. a supernatural being "designing things". In philosophy, this is known as "The Prime Mover" argument for the existence of god.
-
...you'll just stay at home thinking, like, whatever, man.
And thus does society decompose... -
it makes it worse when the 28% who still support Bush just make shit up when they debate. Makes me want to beat their heads in with a claw hammer.
-
Apr 22, 2008 5:16:23 PM CDT
LaserPants, your ability to see "gayness" proves only one thing
by puddleglum
you are looking for things that aren't there only to prove yourself right. There may be hints at certain points in 300 or Spartacus (I know there is at least one scene in Spartacus which hints at the bisexuality of Curtis's character), but these film were not intended to be a gateway to homosexuality or any kind of overt display for male homosexuality. Especially when talkign about Spartacus. In that day, the major Hollywood studios wouldn't put up that kind of money or even get near the thought of making a film that intentionally promoted homosexuality. That's the whole reason that scene with Curtis was CUT from the original release of Spartacus. If you see that much homosexuality in these films, it can only be a reflection of what you want to see in it because there are no continuous and overt displays in these films (at leat that I remember and not including scenes studios cut from the original releases). If seeing half naked men makes makes a film "gay", then wouldn't half-naked women make it "gay" for female audience members? The thoery just doesn't work, friend.
-
Nope, that's not me on WWTDD. But I'm not surprised someone else is a fan of Bob Odenkirk's work on the Larry Sanders Show (Stevie Grant was Larry's sleazy agent, think Ari Gold minus any redeemable qualities and a coke habit).
-
than there would be if the pro-evolution scientists just made shit up to explain those "holes" in their theories. At least they have some imperical proof to underlay the theories they propose. Intelligent Design has nothing to support it except a defact argument that "evolution can't explain EVERYTHING". what the hell kind of theory is that?? Certianly it isn't MORE sound than evolution which at least HAS some hard evidence behind it.
-
it's been a long, long time since I watched Larry Sanders. I mostly just remember Hank Kingsley and "Hey now!"
-
(damn my not proofreading!)
-
as eloquently explained by a prominent educator/ pioneer in this lecture footage: http://tinyurl.com/5utvmr
-
and Rip Torn, and Shandling... man, I wish they would go ahead and provide full seasons on dvd instead of just a few episodes.
-
anyone watching the new season of deadliest catch?
-
Wow, this is really off topic. A landmark court case in Pennsylvania in 2005 barred the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools because it ruled that ID was religion, not science:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
It was not long ago in history that the fact that the earth revolved around the sun was controversial, for religious reasons. The same science that is behind putting a man on the moon, computers, genetic engineering and a cure for cancer is the same science that backs the theory of evolution. Biology boils down to chemistry, chemistry boils down to physics, and physics boils down to mathematics. One day we will be able to mathematically model human intelligence and personalities. Today we can medically modify both.
-
I wish I was (don't get discovery channel). And Dirty Jobs. Discovery does reality television right.
-
anti war film simply need to be made, now more than ever.we live in a media saturated society where propaganda is disguised as embedded news reporting and critical opinions are labeled as unpatriotic.i love well made intelligent films as much as i love popcorn flicks and so even if these anti war films are terrible, the fact that they are being made , promoted and screened is aconstant source of hope for me.and the one reality is that so far the official death toll of non combatants in iraq is past 100,000 fifty time 9/11......how clean is anyones hands now?
-
Some very cool info from the both of you there! Chenault was a brilliant tactician and taught those pilots a lot of tricks.C-47/DC-3 pretty much same plane. Military/civilian. Built at Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica which is now a business park! There is a DC-3 parked on the airport's tarmac that still flys. Same thing with Lockheed in Burbank; restaurant row. They have monuments along the entrance where you can see tributes to the P-38 and SR-71. I still say that Pearl Harbor could have been prevented and FDR was aware, but that's the beauty of AICN. Guys like you and most of the AICN posters, can carry on a discussion without saying "up yours, you midget donkey fucker" or a phrase of that effect(Unless they really need it, then the gloves are off!). We can disagree or agree and carry on a civil conversation. Plus, we all learn something. Besides, "Hitler-schmitler," this is more interesting stuff. Hey, wasn't this post about a movie? Oh, well..."The Hurt Locker" looks good at least.
-
do you know anything about how science works? ID is just another term for religion. No credible scientist will deny evolution.
-
I feel kinda dirty jumping into the political part of this TB, but here I go. It seems a lot of people have heard that in the 80's the rich got richer while the poor got poorer so much that just accept it as true, when it isn't. The vast majority of economic papers I've read over this subject agree that blue collar real wages rose by about 5% throughout the 80's while white collar real wages rose by about twice that. So, no, the poor did not get poorer; blue collar purchasing power increased rather impressively against the previous decade's, it just didn't increase as much as white collar's. And the wage differential is in large part due to sectoral shifts and and new organizational strategies corporations were introducing (such as stock options for executives) that the US economy was undergoing during that time-frame (and had been heading towards for at least a decade). These sectoral shifts, along with the anti-inflationary policies of his first term led to the spike in unemployment (you have to choose between unemployment rate and inflation rate). Reagan inherited a large inflation rate when he entered office. However, the anti-inflationary policy worked in just a few years, to everyone's surprise. Hence, the inflation adjusted projections of tax revenue never materialized, and Reagan didn't want to raise taxes in his second term for political reasons and the Reagan deficits occurred.
-
It observes, re-creates, and represents humanity and the world in all its f***ed up glory and inglory. It doesn't point fingers, it doesn't name call (that's propaganda's job). Yes, it should attempt to enlighten us, perhaps even change the way we think, but never at the expense of some other political party, leader, or organization. Life isn't just a two way street, it's a fifty lane freeway. We all have a hand in the destruction or the salvation of the world. We're all connected, and no one is off the hook. Real art, besides being entertaining, should make us realize that. I think...
-
Carville to Carlson - "EAT SHIT CARLSON YOU FUCKTARD"..
Carlson Responds - "FUCK YOU CARVILLE YOU LEFTY CUNT"..
Begala - "WHERE THE FUCK IS MY WHOPPER.. YYYEEEEAAAHHHOOOO!!!"
Then perhaps Jon Stewart wouldn't have had to engage his special mind powers and pwn Carlson and it wouldn't have got itself fucking Cancelled.. -
Apr 22, 2008 6:41:02 PM CDT
If The Entire Film Was About An Army Of Butch Naked Women?
by laserpants
Yes, it would be homoerotic lesbian film. Like imagine a movie about an army of amazons, greased down, running about in their panties and being butch. Hot, right? Of course! And it would be a huge hit in both the lesbian community and straight male community. Most importantly, it would also be totally homoerotic, and celebrated as such. Of course, in our society there is a double standard. Everybody loves lesbians. Well, that is, the hetero male fantasy version of lesbians. Gay men, on the other hand, are not so lucky, and so 300 plays to that weird disconnect in that the chief badguy is totally effeminate (and brown skinned) and all the good guys are greased down butch gay male models in red speedos. The heroes play to gay male fantasies, and the effeminate villian is like the "receiver" of the butch phallus. This helps the closet homosexual man to pretend he's not as gay as the "bottom" who is pierced by the "top" butch gay's phallus. If anyone is in denial here, its the people who refuse to see it for what it is -- Frank Miller working out his gay issues. Not that he's gay, necessarily, or that every man who loved 300 is gay, but that "the gay" is screaming at you, and you have to come up with all kinds of elaborate deflections, unsuccessfully, for how its not howlingly homoerotic. Look, its okay. You can like 300 and not be gay. I thought it was retarded, but it wasn't the gayness that made it so, I just thought that element was amusing. Most super butch stuff comes off as gay. I mean, look at football. All these dudes bent over, and then the one guy has to reach between the guys legs to grab the ball and throw it or carry it into the "end zone?" G-A-Y.
-
droppin' science, yo.
-
Apr 22, 2008 6:48:07 PM CDT
You're right Gotham, Reganomics Detstoryed the Middle Class
by ganymede3010
Hell, even his own Vice President George H.W Bush called his plan "Vodoo-Economic's". The middle class has never recovered from Trickle Down economics of the 80's.
-
What most people call "Voodoo Economics" is actually just one aspect of it called the Laffer curve which relates tax rates to government revenue. Some of you might remember it from Econ101 as being represented as a downward facing hyperbola (it's much more complicated in reality). Basically, it says that once tax rates increase past the maximum, gov. revenue decreases as taxes increase (this is called being on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve). By all indications, the top tax brackets were on the wrong side when Reagan took office, that's why gov. income from those top brackets increased significantly in a relatively short time after those taxes were lowered. I'll stop bothering/boring everyone with the economics now, and head to gym. Later guys.
-
may actually be screwing with us. I think the ID debate is actually a conspiracy by scientists to get more funding. Wait. . . don't skip ahead! Hear me out . . . Listen: Evolution is absolute science fact, right? Right! Now, imagine if the truth were really knows: That evolution is accepted by even stupid fucktards in backwater Mississippi, as well as evangelicals who can't differentiate between "how" and "why" of their creationist philosophies. If we all learn this truth, then what happens? Exactly . . . those that STUDY evolution, adding to the already volumunous unmediated scientific proof that already exists . . . well, they'd be out of jobs. "Sorry guys, it's like, totally all figured out. No need to convince anyone anymore." "Oh shit", they'll say. "Now how will I pay rent, feed my kids, and afford all those lab coats?" . . . Yup, you guessed it. . . What they need to keep themselves working is CONTROVERSY. . . they need a way to convince people that there are acutally idiots in the world idiodic enought to believe in idiodic Intelligent Design. Now, c'mon, we're all reasonably educated here. . . evolution is so obvious that even a eight year old picks it up the basics. . . yet, somehow we've been hornswaggled. They want the moral outrage from the "intelligenso" (most Americans above an IQ of 70), causing, of course. . . a rise in evolution research funding, designed to counter what is essentially a ridiculous set of antique belief systems. . . I say that Anchorite is a fucking PLANT for the scientific community, put there to convince us there is an intellectual crisis in this country, when there is not . . . PEOPLE, wake up. No such crisis exists. There are NOT people stupid, half-witted, and balls-to-the-wall retarted enough to accept Intelligent Design in a public school system. Conspiracy! I cry conspiracy . . . I expose you Ancorite, you fucking plant!
-
Anyone who makes under $500,000 dollars a year and votes Republican is a screaming fucking moron. The reason why so many middle class and working class people do vote Republican is because they think, quite erroneously, that somehow, the obscene wealth of the Republican party will "trickle down" to them; that by voting for them, they will somehow placed on the list of the select, the elite, the ultra-wealthy. Of course, the truth is that this will never, ever happen. The obscenely wealthy Republicans don't like you! They hate you! They use you to get what they want, and then discard you. But the dream, the illusion, that it will is so powerful for so many people, that they continue to willfully vote against their own best self-interest.
-
Wages in the 70's were worse than those in the 80s, and wages in the 60s were worse than those in the 70s, and wages in the 50s were worse than those in the 60s, etc, etc. Overall, the US economy has been growing steadily since the depression. And the effects of raising the minimum wage is a whole other topic (it's not all rainbows and puppies like people seem to think, it's more like higher unemployment among teenagers and single mothers since they're the largest groups that actually earn min. wage). But, I'm leaving for the gym now. Later.
-
what?
-
Trickle down theory relies on the people/corporations getting taz breaks to reinvest their money in their companies. You see, when Exxon Mobile posts the largest quarterly net profit in the HISTORY OF COMMERCE, that means that they can probably pay their employees more...but they don't. Sure, an outgoing CEO might give himself a $500 million retirement package, but that's not really all that ethical, now is it? But you can bet that ordering ice sculptures that piss Stoli sure is awesome! Yes, the rich get rich and the middle class is screwed.
-
I see yet another TB has answered the rhetorical question as to why I don't engage in political discussions too much, at least here. Too much ad hominem for my taste. As for the film itself, I can see why the US military might not endorse a film. They didn't endorse such flag waving fare as Independence Day, simply because it talked about Area 51. Institutions will defend their image in the public eye for political protection. The only exception of which I can think is the tobacco settlement which is being used to fund truthout ads that actually make me want to light up they're so bad. If Greengrass's premise is essentially the boilerplate of the left's indictment of the occupation would it make any sense to endorse such a film? For as much as they're consistently portrayed as untrained psychopaths with rifles, I can completely understand if they're not all for an outright condemnation of their work.
-
I think those anti-drug commercials where the kid sees a dog talking to her because she smoked pot is the worst. I mean, where was that shit when I was 15? The weed I smoked just made me want to play Mario Cart and GoldenEye on 64, drink Orbits, and eat ice cream.
-
The conflict in Darfur is deteriorating, with full deployment of a new peacekeeping force delayed until 2009 and no prospect of a political settlement for a war that has killed perhaps 300,000 people in five years, U.N. officials said Tuesday.
In grim reports to the Security Council, the United Nations aid chief and the representative of the peacekeeping mission said suffering in the Sudanese region is worsening. Tens of thousands more have been uprooted from their homes and food rations to the needy are about to be cut in half, they said.
-
If liberal Eco policies were so great explain why the most liberal areas in this nation are doing so poorly? It's easy to say poor vote GOP because they are stupid or duped, but just maybe they trust themselves to make more money than the government can provide them.
-
When will they make a movie about the heroes fighting the war? Just wondering...
-
They have but unfortunately it's one of the absolute worst war movies I have ever seen ! Called Home of the brave with Sam Jackson.
-
http://tinyurl.com/5duo7y
-
Lions for Lambs, Rendition, Stop Loss, Redacted, etc. Need I say more? This movie will follow suit. Poor Paul. Such a gifted filmaker.
-
An excellent question. As former military myself, I realize that there are lots of sides to the war. But for the Soldier, or marine on the ground, there is only one side. Only one objective. To live through it. War, as has long been known by those who have fought in one, is not glamorous. It is not in itself heroic to be a Soldier or Marine, or to be involved in a war. Most servicemen and women, simply want to do their jobs, finish their tour(s), and get the hell out of dodge. When you are fighting, the most important thing in your life, is not the flag. It is not the cause, it is the person or persons standing next to you, because they are the ones who will get you home safely, and they feel the same about you. Heroism, comes in many forms in battle, some large, most small. Not all of it has to do with taking live fire, but it is always in a situation that brings about extraordinary results. An example. Soldiers or Marines risking their lives to save Iraqi children pinned down by sniper fire, or caught in a crossfire. That is undeniably heroic, and at the same time, it is what we are taught and trained to do. If you came across a child in the u.S. that was similarly threatened, wouldn't you help? Extraordinary things, made ordinary because of the war. These are the heroic stories that should be told, but they do not have the cache because this is a very unpopular war.
-
Another common fallacy is about corporate profits. CEO compensation doesn't usually come from profits. By and large, profits go to the corporation's owners, the shareholders, by raising the value of the stock. However, you forget that many of the corporate programs (it depends from corp. to corp., but overall) such as retirement and health plans and funds for the families of deceased workers and so on, are based in stock (a lot of times it's easier for a corp. to transfer stock or issue new stock to fund these programs). And, Golden Parachutes and the like were introduced to promote "good" behavior in the management, so they won't go empire building or attempt to nefariously influence the stock value to keep the Board happy. The success of these practices is debated, but the argument seems to center if it's cost effective rather than effective. Finally, Exxon posted its largest profit because it sold more gas. If you're referring to the same quarter that Hillary "wanted to take those profits," then Exxon was only making between 7-9 cents profit per gallon (both state and federal gas taxes are multiple times higher). So, in that quarter, the government made way more money off the gas than the company that provided it at every gas station.
-
"Makes me want to beat their heads in with a claw hammer."Come on. I'm supposed to believe you're really a lefty? You're clearly a red-stater trying to make liberals look like frothing-at-the-mouth, nothing-but-insult kookburgers. You're not fooling me. Don't believe the hype, people.
-
You do realize, that by claiming to speak for America with statements like that, you clearly illustrate just how out of touch you are, right? I think we all know who really wants a "real man..."
-
And I also believe in the box office. 4 days on over a thousand screens, and only $3 million for "Expelled". Ben Stein couldn't get the same deal for his polemic that Mel Gibson got for his Christian torture-porn?
It's comparable to Sicko, although he's clearly kicked Spurlock's ass. Most other contemporary documentaries haven't had as wide a release as "Expelled", so who can say? I'm pretty sure managing to match the performance of "Sicko" was not the goal of the film makers. -
Where he looks at the camera and goes: "Bueller. Bueller. Bueller."
-
Film at 11.
-
It's philosophy. Shouldn't be taught as science or as an alternative "theory" to scientific theory.
-
Gas was more expensive... the economy was tanking... 1,000 US soldiers were dying per month in Vietnam (that is right, PER MONTH). We have it easy.
-
To blather on endlessly about our various partisan gripes, or otherwise troll.
-
Apr 22, 2008 9:11:53 PM CDT
When the military won't help you, and you have no place to turn.
by mrmysteryguest
-
what are those lame photos supposed to accomplish except to illustrate what a crappy film this is going to be based on liberal conspiracy theory and having little authenticity. Military wouldn't cooperate? What a shock, and why should it? Hm, the film has a 'critical stance on the occupation of Iraq', funny, so did Saddam Hussein; Iran has a critical stance also, and so do the Islamic terrorists, the military has no plans to cooperate with them either. Also, where's the real 'cool' news? A new Narnia trailer just came out on IGN, pretty cool stuff, and some images worth looking at.
-
Apr 22, 2008 9:32:24 PM CDT
If Intelligent Design isn't science, neither is String Theory
by antoniusbloc
check out the book NOT EVEN WRONG, science cannot possible go beyond the material universe, and now that its own method has confirmed a beginning for the material universe, the Big Bang, what comes before the Big Bang, the cause of creation, must turn to philosophy. What science has to admit is that it has reached its limit in determining some major truths in the universe, especially when it comes to the origins of life and the universe. Science simply doesn't know, and what it should be teaching is how it would be not only an inferior tool to determining these origins, but useless. The scientific method is limited to the material world. The key word is 'limited'. It's own method cannot prove that the universe is only made up of the physical, that our universe is only material. To make its conclusions, in fact, science makes a presuppostion: that only the material world exists. By its own method of proof, science cannot prove that assumption.
-
Everyone calling me an idiot for saying so, id like to hear what was even remotely 'good' about the film. Heres my beef- it did not need to be made. What you may call a meditative and patriotic look at the Americans that stood up to Al Queda on the plane, I call a cheap ploy to capitalize on peoples very real, and very justified feelings on the subject. Now, do not confuse my hating the film with not being patriotic or something. But, this film was made to make cash, not heal hearts. Yes it was a tragic event, what is gained by filming it verbatim??? A lot of sad, tragic shit goes on, and sure we rely on art and film to make sense of it. Thats where autuers come in, to tell us a story in their unique, original, dynamic ways, conveying a message or voice they want us to understand. Thats art, right? Simply re-staging such a tragedy? Not so much. I was appalled at the lack of quality direction from Greengrass. It played like a Lifetime TV movie, plain and simple. The shots were constructed with zero artistry, only a shaky shaky cam. Now, such a perspective has a place, but not in this film. Whose eyes are we seeing through, a news cameraman? No. It is an inconsistent perspective, and there is no reason why the film should not have kept a steady cam, which would have heightened its sense of contemplation. Instead, whoaaa, were wobbling around the cabin and control rooms, and illiterate film fans eat that shit up. "Wow, the camera's shaking! Shit is intense, things are going on, whoooo." I call it Cheap. The acting, and writing were also straight garbage. Characters spoke the lines in a forced, completely unnatural way. The sequence of the Air Traffic guy finding out whats going on with the planes is cringe-inducing, "Huh, what, whats going on, huh, what, durrr..." Now I get that he is the 'actual' person, like many of the 'actors', cool, i guess. Or, they could have cast proper actors to deliver proper lines. To not like this film may be construed as being soulless, but its quite the opposite. I see the film as nearly a disservice to those involved. Did their families get the box office returns? Doubt it. Ohh, but you might say, 'hyuk, but they made a mooovie outofit!' As if that in itself is some fantastic memorial, as if the Gods of Hollywood shone down on Earth and made everything better. Not so. There are great films that deal with terror, and this is simply not one. Battle of Algiers, Memories of Underdevelopment, Here and Elsewhere, Weekend, Germany in Autumn, Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y, even Munich. These films come from filmmakers who have something to say, and do so in masterful ways, and thereby exist as works of art. Greengrass re-shot a national tragedy. So yeah, call me an idiot, but If you really enjoy this film, than you are more likely the idiot. Flame on!
-
And I'm a card-carrying Democrat. Hillary Clinton, a corrupt opportunist, will have her skanky ass handed to her in a matter of months (weeks?). Bill Clinton, a mediocre president, is now in the league of p.r. whores with Jesse Jackson & Co. (some of Clinton's "foreign" revenue is now suspect). I wish President Obama much prosperity. In regard to the Greengrass movie, it'll be exiled to memory and Blockbuster bins approx. 2 months after it's theatrically released (I don't wish this fate upon the movie but, gauging past history [e.g. the past month], it's inevitable). Anyone want to throw stones at me, go ahead; I'm outta this post and movin' on.
-
Intelligent Design is simply not science. This isn't a threat, or an unfair accusation, It's not science in the same way that Willie Nelson isn't Hip Hop.
-
that people could disagree without resorting to insults? I think at one time people considered that tolerance. But today when people disagree they wish them death or insult them with the most degrading vulgarities. We haven't "evolved" we have "de-evolved". Kind of like AintItCoolNews talkbacks. A fine example of the human race we have become.
-
Actually, I thought Clinton was a lousy president. 'Night, drive carefully.
-
Apr 22, 2008 10:38:29 PM CDT
How Many NeoCons Does It Take To Screw In A Lightbulb?
by half-baked-goggle-box-do-gooder
-
Answer: None. There Is Nothing Wrong With The Lightbulb. It's Conditions are improving every day. Any report of it's lack of incandescence is a delusional spin by the Liberal Media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say about it's going out undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?
-
My point is that it is beyond the limits of science. Intelligent design is spoken as if it cannot be a possible truth because science cannot confirm it, assuming that science alone CAN determine such truths. The problem is, science is limited to the material world, and its method of proof is based on the assumption that ONLY the material world exists; it deals only in the physical world. Therefore, any claim that deals with the origin of the universe, and the origin of life, along with the fact that the universe itself had a beginning, the Big Bang, is beyond the reach of science. My point would be that if alternatives such as String theory are brought up in science, which have no possible physical data to support it, then Intelligent design should also be mentioned. I think what confirmation of the Big Bang, and the fact that the universe had a beginning, that only 4 percent of the universe is confirmed to be material, has made clear the limits of science and its method of proof. In other words, to bring Intelligent design to the level of science would be to reduce it to an inferionr method of searching for truth, because it is limited by its assumption that only the material world exists; its method of proof presupposes a physical universe. Perhaps a stronger argument would be to demand the teaching of philosophy into the school system, putting it at the same level of discipline as science. Ironically, it is because of the latest discoveries in science that this should be done. In short, Intelligent design should be taught somewhere in the school education system as a possibility because logic points to its possibility, along with scientific physical evidence. Science, by itself, is very limited. Science yet fully understands the nature of human consciousness, the origin of life and the universe, still doesn't fully comprehend gravity, magnetism, or the true origin of lightning.
-
1. actually intelligent design is not a possible truth because NO ONE can confirm it.
2. by definition, only the material world does exist. Thats why it is called "material".
3. why is any claim of origin beyond the reach of science? You assume the origin of universe and life had a non-material origin. It is possible to come up with models of origins based on information about conditions.
Intelligent Design is not a method of "searching for truth". ID is when you look at s omething, can't figure it out, and just say "The sky man did it".
Someone made some stories up a long time ago. They aren't true. They were the L. Ron Hubbard of their day. Get over it. -
Sorry, had to chime in here. It's an article of faith on the left that sunnis and shias can't join forces. Iran is a shia theocracy, but that doesn't stop them from funding and directing the sunni Hamas, or dealing closely with the atheist state of North Korea.
Saddam was funding Zawahiri before he joined up with Bin Laden. The idea of 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' being some separate organization is another leftist fantasy. Zawahiri himself says Iraq is the central front in the war against the west. He's an Egyptian, Zarqawi was a Jordanian, Bin Laden a Saudi, but they all have their jihadi goals in common.
These aren't right-wing opinions, they are black and white facts.
Ok, back to sleep everyone, there is no terrorist threat.
-
The repeated claim by Barack Obama and his supporters in the media that Shia Iran doesn’t help Sunni terror groups is wrong — very wrong — and yet again reveals their ignorance of foreign affairs, an ignorance that may prove extremely dangerous were Obama to become president.
While Shia and Sunni extremists do of course have deep theological differences they cooperate in at least a dozen countries on a political and terroristic level to work against the interests of the United States.
* In AFGHANISTAN, Iran has financed and armed the Sunni Hizb Islami (Islamic Party) since the 1990s.
* In the former Soviet republics (and now independent states) of TAJIKISTAN and UZBEKISTAN, Iran has for years supported two Sunni movements, the Rastakhiz Islami (Islamic Awakening) and Hizb Tahrir Islami (Islamic Liberation Party).
* In AZERBAIJAN, Tehran supports the Sunni Taleshi groups against the Azeri Shia majority (who are pro-American).
* In ALGERIA between 1992 and 2005, Iran financed the Sunni terrorist group, The Front for Islamic Salvation (FIS).
* In 1996, a suicide attack claimed the lives of 19 American servicemen in Al Khobar, in eastern SAUDI ARABIA. The operation was carried out by the Hizbullah in Hejaz, an Iranian-financed outfit, with the help of the Sunni militant group “Sword of the Peninsula.”
* In 2000, Sunni groups linked to al-Qaeda killed 17 U.S. servicemen in a suicide attack on USS Cole off the coast of YEMEN. A Shia militant group led by Sheikh al-Houti, Iran’s man in Yemen, helped with the operation.
* There are no PALESTINIAN Shia, yet Tehran has become the principal source of funding for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian Sunni terror groups.
* Indeed, Iran is now the chief direct state funder of HAMAS. The new Iranian budget, which came into effect on March 21, allocates over $2 billion to the promotion of “revolutionary causes.” Much of the money will go to Hamas and Hizbullah. -
Michael Scheuer (a former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit in Afghanistan) writes in "Imperial Hubris" that the war on Iraq is based on politically motivated false intelligence from exiled Iraqi's who were looking to overthrow Saddam. The CIA told the White House that it was bad intelligence, but they refused to believe it. He calls the invasion of Iraq "a sham causing more instability than it prevents". At one point in time American forces had Bin Laden and most of the remnants of Al Qaeda trapped in a valley in Afghanistan. However because America had started pulling forces out of Afghanistan in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, the US did not have sufficient troops in place to finish the job and Bin Laden et al escaped into Pakistan. He also says that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda feel they are fighting a defensive war against "imperialist America" due to America's backing of "brutal and corrupt" Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, pre Gulf War I Saddam in Iraq, pre revolution Shaw of Iran) and Israel. If America stopped giving aid to these Muslim dictatorships and Israel and pulled all the US troops out of their bases in these countries, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would no longer have a reason to fight. I have read that Bin Laden is happy that the US has invaded Iraq, as it has succeeded in 1) being a huge propaganda victory for Al Qaeda in the Muslim world and 2) has replaced an anti Iran anti Al Qaeda anti Shia Sunni Iraq goverment (Saddam) with a pro Iran (and more inline with Al Qaeda thinking) Shia Iraq government elected by the dominant Shia population in Iraq. As for the overthrow of the Shaw in Iran, due to the shift in CIA emphasis from intelligence collected on the ground to intelligence collected electronically in the 1970s, in a backwater nation like Iran they never saw the revolution coming, even when there was widespread rioting in the streets. As a result, by the time the CIA was aware of what was happening, it was too late for the US to do anything to stop the overthrow of the Shaw. It had nothing to do with the Carter administration as they were cut down at the knees by a blind CIA.
-
When you say that Science is "very limited'. Very limited compared to what? Science is the application of reason to the phenomena and observable world around us, it has no agenda. I believe we've talked about this before...
Science isn't actually a belief system or an ideology, it's a method, and one that is built on the premise that it can be wrong, often is wrong, and will never be complete. It's an open-minded process, whereas the creationist's version of reality is air-tight and hermetically sealed against even the most passive investigation. One thing that always amuses me about Creationists is their adopting of the empirical state of 'theory' as applied to Natural Selection. "Darwin's theory is just that- a theory", they announce, triumphantly, firmly believing that they have felled Goliath with his own stone. Well, Like I said, Science is a method, and in fact, all science, (with the exception of a fraction of the observable stuff and phenomena that make up our immediate surroundings) is "just a theory". That's how science works. The empirical process begins with an idea, opinion, or leap of intuition, or most often, an unexpected accident, then a hypothesis is formed. Once the hypothesis has been put through a series of tests it becomes a theory. At any point along this line if anything goes wrong, if the hypothesis falls apart under evidence, it never reaches the level of theory. A theory becomes a theory when everything goes right, when all tests and evidence add up to what the hypothesis posits, but something like evolution (or string theory, or the big bang) can't become scientific fact because no one has so far sat down to observe the process over millions of years and take notes. Empirically speaking, it remains 'just a theory', But a theory with almost 200 years of rigorous, mounting evidence and experimentation that supports it. With each and every field of scholarship in science that has developed since Victorian times, geology, chemistry, biology, anthropology, paleontology, (among others) the theory of evolution has been supported. Not once, in almost two centuries has the slightest hint that there might be something wrong with it ever shown up. So "Just a theory" actually means a great, great deal.
It's ironic that the method of science that prevents it from labeling evolution as fact is the thing most infinitely sensible about it, and the thing that creationists try to use against it, without any sense.
Science does not require of itself a perfectly rendered map in order to prove its own merit, it's a process, not a belief system. This is crucial- just because science cannot point to every step along the evolutionary path does not amount to a dismissal of this or any other theory. IT IS A PROCESS. We are still finding evidence, we are still learning about it, after millions of years, we've only been studying it for less than 200. And yet, in all that time, nothing yet has been discovered that disproves the theory. All it would take is one piece of evidence, a fossilized footprint in the wrong geological place, a skull that shouldn't exist in the fossil record, even something microscopic (and believe me, there has been a concentrated search for just such a piece of evidence) but nothing yet. Just because we can't show you the roadmap, doesn't mean the terrain doesn't exist. The same argument is used everyday by people with faith. The difference is, ours is an open-minded process, seeking answers we may not expect or want, whereas faith already has the answer it wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit arbitrarily.
let me ask you- if some of the Bible is myth, and some of it is fact, by what method do you determine the difference? It certainly isn't scienific, but there must be one, surely?
One more thing- It's a fallacy to suggest that just because something like evolution is 'unprovable', it automatically puts it in the same category as any theory you could imagine. There are degrees, there is a spectrum of logic, assumption, circumstantial and peripheral evidence, informed argument that can point you in the proper direction, as long as you remain objective. It's a matter of reason. If you've never been to China, how do you know it's really there? Well, a very convincing case can be made for the existence of China. What about Unicorns? Do Unicorns have horns coming out the top of their heads? The answer is no, because there are no Unicorns. How do I know this? Is it a matter of faith? Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible, after all. Maybe Unicorns do exist. Except that they don't, the notion is absurd, and it offends our sense of logic.
By your argument, not only should we teach ID in schools, we should also teach of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Atlantis, the Man in the Moon, Superman, Alien Abduction, protection against Zombies, Vampires and Werewolves... the list goes on. Have I made my point?
-
Obama will still probably take the nom.
-
...Is that after eight years of one screaming, raging, America-hating lefty tantrum after another the whole thing will turn on a dime if/when Obama is elected. The media will set itself back on cruise control and shark attacks will be front page news again. If anything that's what paying attention to politics during the Clinton years taught me, for most people it's all about your team being in charge.
-
On the part of the voting public, and Republicans will gain significantly in the house and senate if Obama is the prez. And more conservative agenda will move forward than with McCain as the prez. But, alas, even if I cast my vote for Obama, I don't think he's going to win. I don't think either of them have much chance against McCain. But, I may be wrong. I've been wrong once before.
-
You sound as though the Rightwing has always sat idly by when the Dems are in the White House. Ken Starr ring a bell? Impeachment? The so-called Contract With America? Looks like you really weren't "paying attention to politics during the Clinton years", you're just making a pointless argument. And I'm sure the America-hating Right will sit quietly aside while Obama fixes their mess for the next 8 years.
-
... from beginning to end, please raise your hand.
-
doesn't have to be military issue, but it's hurtin my eyes jus THINKIN about this movie!
-
And, of course, they will obstruct Obama's socialism at every turn.
-
High definition. More importantly, this looks like an anti-war movie that I want to see. If this one doesn't turn a profit, I'll be surprised. Apparently, one movie gets that you actually have to make an interesting movie with broad appeal . . . the future will tell if my prediction that it'll do better than Lions for Lambs comes true.
-
Remember Perejil.
-
Apr 23, 2008 2:12:54 AM CDT
do you creationist/scientist types want your minds blown?
by bendersshinyass
The Earth is growing (all continents fit together on a smaller globe) the grand canyon is not erosion, but an opening, which closes ona deflated planet. The oceans form through steaming of the interior and also precipitation not only from evaportation (minimal) but from materials aquired from the sun as we tumble. Gravity has nothig to do with the planets 'pull' but from inertia as we spin and grow in all directions. The moon is growing too - thats what all that grey stuff is in amounst the white - new land. Impact craters are not impact craters at all but geological formed naturally. God is not real, only the existance of the living universe and all the components which make it up. and the best thing of all? the earth is a thin bubble - housing an interior forming star!
-
You forgot to mention the giant alien fetus using the Earth as a cosmic womb, and the life-force of all humanity as it's embryonic food source.
Hmm, I like that. Maybe in 2000 years I'll get THAT taught in schools. -
I didn't know that the CIA was a "leftist fantasy" factory. Because that's where I get my facts...where do you get your's? Little Green Footballs? Free Republic? Asshole.
-
I want to put this one final thought to bed first.
Antonius- all the rationalizations aren't going to convince you, and all your faith won't convince me. So here's the thing:
What pisses off people who don't believe in ID or creationism, whether they believe in God or not, is the obvious agenda being served by the arguments. It's OBVIOUS that proponents of these ideas are twisting themselves into painful pretzel-like intellectual contortions in order to serve the agenda of their faith. You probably wouldn't even disagree on this point, you know that it's no coincidence that the same people who promote Creationism also happen to be Christians.
What I ask you to consider is this: that people like me, who make an effort to engage, and form a counter-argument to your claims, have no agenda to serve. I am not a proselytizing atheist. I am not anti-Christian, nor am I anti-religious, any more than I am "pro science". See, from my perspective, saying I'm "pro-science" is like saying I'm "pro-breathing". Science is not in competition with religion, it's on a completely different level. People who promote evolution aren't doing it just to piss you off, or because they have a beef with God. I know this might be hard to swallow, since it's not how your group operates, but it's true. They promote evolution because it makes sense.
Now, as a logical, intelligent person, which argument would you support? the one that has no agenda to serve, or the one that does? -
This is the guy who, aside from defending zfisk/homewrecker's zaniness, also rushed to the defense of GingerTwit, who not only claimed the moon landings were fake, but that the Moon's gravity is six times that of the Earth.
-
and Bender- are we really going to fall in to the centre of the Earth, because I heard Dinosaurs live down there and it would be cool to see them?
-
I'd rather try to defend Stalin than him.
-
...he's supposedly a "documentary filmmaker" as well.
-
I have not had such a good laugh reading this Talkback since when I first seen a picture of Harry Knowles for the first time!
Let it all burn -
Bloody Sunday and United 93 are classics. I was blown away by both. I can understand not seeing 93 but check out Bloody Sunday if you have the chance. It's a fucking masterpiece.
-
clonned should read cloned
-
all of us now ... HOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE AND CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE! (repeat over and over until november)
-
United 93 is a superb film, brilliantly acted and masterfully directed. Films should address the times in which they are made. Greengrass made a heartbrekaing movie which paid tribute to the memory of those who died on that flight with sentimentalising them. Eat shit and go and watch Transformers again, idiot.
-
and not just a dead one. That would be cool.
-
bender or Zfisk?
-
...use a dead pteradactyl as a hang glider, inna Yor stylee.
-
Bender
-
I own three hats (Not unlike Indy)and it would be convenient. Cheers Doc. I'm surprised at that given his shitty taste in films.
-
as I understand it, ID is a way for fundamentalists to try to get creationism taught as science- there are gaps in Evolution that must mean there is a guiding hand (intelligent designer) behind the process. This is an attractive idea, as it neatly plugs any holes in the current theory and makes it look like creationists are conceding ground on Darwin. However, as far as I can see it has one fucking huge problem that it is never, ever, going to get over, viz. that the crux of the argument is something that it is absolutely impossible to prove or disprove. What you are essentially trying to get the anti-ID lot to do is disprove the existance of God. And believe me, if as rational humans we could have done that already, we would. If you ask me "are there 227.4 million invisible intangible pink hedgehogs flying around in the stratosphere", I'm automatically going to say no. However, you can easily then say "but prove there aren't" and this is something that I can't do. However, it doesn't mean that there are 227.4 invisible intangible pink hedgehogs up there. See?
-
Ain´t it cool news? The center of the Earth is full of naked chicks!
-
your a cunt
-
Your= belonging to you. You're= you are. Just thought I'd help you seeing as you love correcting typos.
-
Priceless.
-
Don't forget he stole their sweets first..!! fucking classic..!!
-
54% of Pensyllvanians are legally retarded.
-
54% of Pennsylvanians are legally retarded AND racist. They done been scared by the black man who tells the truth: as they bitterly clutch their guns and pray to their angry, imaginary space god. But, hey, if its any consolation, Philly is Obama all the way.
-
Regarding Toadkiller's post, that's because that dude always throws out some good, reasoned posts. They always seem to get lost in the shuffle of talkback insanity though....And his new name is materyoda...now.Jarv, the uprising has begun ->http://tinyurl.com/64jddp
-
See- don't fuck with bears.
-
I know which team I want to be on.
-
Fucking knew it, not only is he a disgrace to Bearkind, but a lying cunt as well: http://tinyurl.com/4p79fk
-
No one wants to see another movie critical of the US Military. Guess what Hollywood? The majority of us cash paying customers support our men in uniform and will pay to see movies which display them in heroic terms. Keep making "statement" films and keep losing money. What a crazy business.
-
Fantastic posts my man. I'm a sometime Deist/sometime Atheist and that's because I have total distrust of organized religion and anyone claiming to know or represent the word of a possible Creator (i.e. any clergy). What really amuses me is the religious belief that someone could live a righteous life, doing good by others which is the greatest one can accomplish in society, yet be eternally damned because of a failure to "believe" in some storybook character, be it God, Allah, Jehovah or Joseph Smith. Let someone else torture themselves with that dark cloud over their lives. If I were to ever embrace a defined religious belief system, it'll more likely be Buddhism or Taoism.
-
Yeah, but now they've lost 3 games in a row, getting absolutely smoked by the Cubs. Luckily it was only a quick two game series. You want Delgado? The Mets will take a warm six-pack for him. Hell, you can even drink one of them. A five-pack is more than fair. And your D-backs seem to be the class of the NL (I realize it's early and not saying much, but well, there it is).
-
This was his chance to fucking eat a librarian or something.
-
WHo is masteryoda- aside from a grammar correcting cunt. The all time funniest was when Memories of Murder tried to correc xiphos using a common British colloquial phrase, fucked it up so what he was attempting to say was actually gibberish.
-
Hey man, for what it's worth ... I agree with you about Toadkiller's excellent post but just wanna add that, knowing what you personally went through and accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, you embody what Toadkiller described.
-
or cornholing Booboo. THe fucker should be Alpha bear and he's just a little sweaty codpiece.
-
giving that cunt Braffed a kicking. Has anyone not smacked the little twat about.
-
But Xi typed materyoda in his last response to him, and I think it is entirely appropriate this his handle be misspelled.
-
I misread both. Do'h
-
Nothing masterful about that backwards talking green turd.
-
see Roland's description of why Kenobi is the biggest cunt in celluloid. I can't do it justice but it basically runs that he was an arrogant rebellious tosser that went against the council's mandate, but was too useless to do the training properly. Instead of fighting he buggers of to the outer rim before preparing his padwan's son as some sort of guided weapon, motivated by the chance of a bit of nookie with his sister. What a bastard.
-
Who knew a father would be capable of turning his son's anus into a cash cow?
-
is still OK. What a cunt. I seem to have driven the vile little hypocrite away. It took me long enough. Now if I can just do the same to braffed, although that will be harded because I'm yet to see the cocksucker venture anything resembling an opinion.
-
Whatever happened to Childe anyway? Any sightings of the chap?
-
but didn't seem comfortable with it. Quickly reverted back to his trolling ways. I think he missed typing "sunshine" and "sprinkles" or the variation du jour.
-
And he has some genuinly brilliant posts.
-
became my pet project for a while. In a way I sort of miss him. The same way you kind of miss your "special" relative that you had put in a home.
-
and then you get shitheels like the drippy little whore to replace him.
-
gotham knight actually does post comments that are related to the subject at hand sometimes. The drippy little whore never does.
-
Gotham has on rare occasions posted coherently, and he watches TLC. I think he's just severely bored and likes to instigate. Braffed just likes to amuse himself by riling people, but he needs to change up his schtick. Suit and Tie is a scatalogical artist. He's the big troll that swallows those 2 little trolls whole whenever he shows up.
-
...is truly missed here. His posts in Tarantino, Eli Roth and Shyamalan talkbacks are legendary.
A true giant among talkbackers. -
it has fucking EVERYTHING!
-
Gotham-night= skywalker_family. A drooling fanboy twat of the lowest order (look at the names), Braffed=Glovedone/braff08 and is just TB flotsam. He's a useless pointless individual. That was me that diagnosed him as mentally ill, but it is sort of obvious.
-
either the Flying Spaghetti Monster or TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION in ages either, and I suspect they are the same person- same styistic ticks. And both very funny.
-
but wasn't it Childe who posted the ten things to do in NY for Demon Dave? That cracked me up..hell, still cracks me up.."hug a cabbie".
-
You may indeed be right. I have a feeling that it wears a cape when it changes handles...
-
but it does wear its underoos on the outside of its sweatpants. Mind you that's how it always dresses, when its mother isn't there to help it.
-
And how about a surprise appearance by Harrison Ford?
-
Do you want to end the war in Iraq an the war on terror? Let the United States military do its job without interference. Stop perpetual criticism of the very people that ensure the freedom of speech that we are all enjoying in this TB. Start being more critical of terrorist and regimes that consistently abuse human rights. Putting underwear on the heads of Iraqi prisoners or roughing up suspected terrorist does not constitute the type of human rights violations that I am referring to. Compare those activities to the abuses perpetrated by Saddam Huessin or the current Chinese government and you'll get my meaning. Will innocent civilians die in war, yes. It is unfortunate, but that is war. The question is, would you rather prolong the wars and at the cost of more American and Coalition lives, or end the wars sooner if it means more foreign civilians may die. I would invite one to revisit the effects of carpet bombing or firebombing civilian population centers by Allied forces in WWII. Compare the effectiveness of those air campaigns to the micro-managed sorties flown by U.S. forces during the Vietnam Conflict.
If one questions whether or not support on the homefront, of any war, is essential to the success of the military in any conflict, I would encourage them to research the efforts of the CPI in WWI.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge that what I have written are my opinions. I acknowledge that they may be controversial, and possibly incorrect. Such is the nature of opinions. I am, obviously a conservative. I have "liberal" friends and I enjoy debating them. I may disagree with them, as I frequently do, but I try to maintain respect for them. It is easy to resort to name calling and mud-slinging, but that really doesn't do much to support one's opinion. If anything, it demonstrates a complete lack of respect and highlights one's ignorance. -
You should be ashamed of yourself. So what you are basically saying is that wholesale genocide of the civilian population is not only acceptable but desirable provided you win this bullshit "war" faster. You fucking horrible piece of human detritus. And this current mess is in no way comparable to WW2. So stop fucking doing it.
-
I am pleased with the direction this is heading. Warhawk sabre rattling and liberals firing insults like machine guns. You guys are so easily manipulated.
By the way: The army was asked to provide tanks, choppers, soldiers, and other hardware, and they naturally said, "NO, SCOTT." -
It is an unavoidable fact, civilians have always and will always die in war. Would you rather your loved ones, or fellow countrymen (women) be among those who die or would you rather see those, that stand against your beliefs, values and interest, die? It is a simple question really. You know the answer, whether you want to admit it or not. Whether or not the war is a "bullshit war", is irrelevant. It is happening whether you like it or not. Personally, I would much rather see fewer American casualities than Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian casualities. Would you? I would also encourage you to look up the meaning of the term genocide. I reviewed my previous post, and no where did I mention the term. You are obviously opposed to genocide, as you should be. Are you aware that Saddam Huessin was guilty of ordering the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq? That would fall under the category of genocide, or ethnic cleansing. There is a big difference between genocide and casualties of war. That is not an opinion, by the way, it is fact.
-
Apr 23, 2008 8:50:15 AM CDT
Some 'patriotic' americans just wont admit that your boss screwe
by kimbers
I think the real issue that I and most of the rest of the world have with the Iraq war wasnt that it was based on shaky intelligence or neocon desire for revenge/ vindication.
The real outrage is the astounding incompetence, naivety and complete lack of planning for rebuilding the country after the war. It has simply reinforced the global view that Americans are gung-ho cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later.
back to the issue at hand iirc the american airforce refused to help with Independence day unless they removed all reference to Area 51, does that mean there really are aliens there!?
ps intelligent design boy, i think you should go and join your fellow fundamentalist nut-jobs living in the caves of pakistan, plotting the overthrow of the great white satan! -
looking at your original post, you would rather that the US committed to wholesale carpet bombing of civilian population to achieve a very, very fucking dubious end. And don't fucking tell me to look something up, especially when you don't seem to know what the term means. In this case Genocide= "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
". That's from the Geneva FUCKING convention toolbox. So how would you describe wholesale carpet bombing and destruction of, say, Syria or Iran(which are countries that are not even involved in the war- and seem to have little in common aside from being Muslim)? And don't split hairs with me- you seem to think Saddam's massacre of the Kurds= Genocide but your proposed mass bombing= collateral damage. That is bullshit. Lastly, your final sentence- nope, everything you put in both posts is an opinion. And that is a fact. -
In hyprkc's world, any despotic government should just be given free rein to wage war without criticism. Rationale, cause or justification behind the war (or occupation in this case) be damned. Sounds more Hitler youthish than democratic to me.
-
What's great about your post is that it shows how transparent the proclamation of "liberation" is when it comes from people like you. If it turns out that the populations in question object to that form of liberation or that there are more hostile elements than expected among the civilians, well just kill everybody, right?
What kind of moral high ground can western liberal democracy possibly expect to hold if there are no differences between our methods and those of any run-of-the-mill dictatorship waging a war of domination? -
The problem with him is that he doesn't really understand the crap he's recycling. I will take a bet that he couldn't have found Iraq on a map before 9/11. In his world to massively decimate a civilian population= collateral damage when the US do it, but genocide when someone else does it because this is what he's been told. He is a revolting little bastard that is incapable of seeing his own inherent contradictions and actually quite a good argument as to why democracy does not work.
-
about the lack of tactical targets. Which is why I drew the conclusion that he must be taking about wholesale carpet-bombing of the population. He doesn't understand what he's talking about, because he is recycling other people's opinions (especially the laughable genocide distinction). A more ill-informed, hawkish, plain stupid, loathsome post I haven't seen in a long time. Not even Anchorite or Kevin Willis would suggest such a thing.
-
I forgot to say that there is a huge difference between unavoidable civilian casualties and what the bastard is advocating. And when did these utterly fatuous WW2 comparisons start? I've seen it used a few times recently and it is complete fucking horseshit. I blame that stupid "Axis of Evil" speech. This is what happens when you write a speech for the soundbites and not the content- morons like hyprkc think you are being literal.
-
Wholesale elimination of a civilian population. That's just fantastic.
-
I'm still seething over this fascist fucker hiding his decidedly un-American values behind the flag. What a cunt.
-
They have free speech in Iceland. Obviously, this free speech costs the lives of 500,000 civilians from a foreign country, as well as the lives (sand often teh sanity) of their own troops, fightin' a war thousands of miles away. This blood sacrifice is absolutely necessary. I can't see any other alternative to Iceland's free speech. . .
-
Iraq and Afghanistan are invasions and occupations. Despite being obviously morally reprehensible, what would possibly be the purpose or rationale for carpet bombing civilians? That's just an insane, ugly suggestion, the same type offered by the NeoCons at the Weekly Standard throughout the occupation. Civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are themselves now the primary victims of terrorist attacks. And seriously, the "War on Terror" label is long overdue for retirement. What a stupid fucking propaganda label.
-
By all and sundry. I'm livid that the motherfucker told me to look up something he himself doesn't understand. I haven't seen opinions like those since AnimalBraneBalls hung up his drool stained keyboard. The difference is ABB understood what he was writing, I'm not sure this dirtbag does.
-
They also need to make sure that whoever their fighting with doesn't follow them home. Because a $7.99 World Atlas, showing their hidden location in the Atlantic, can't fall into the wrong hands . . .
-
I've never even seen Transformers, but something tells me you have. Read my post again, and actually view the films I cite at the end. You might just get a little bit smarter. Dickhead.
-
Thank you for the compliment, and I from what I have read, you are to be honored for your service. I thank you for that.
-
Your patter is fucking shite. Why don't you and lie in your own shit u spacemonkey! You know were to find me if you want to sort this out....I will be round at your mommas house.
-
Tremendous post. Keep up the good work.
-
Sweet bisexual Jesus! The above posters are right, this TB does have everything. Not sure politics has a place on amovie site but when something is this entertaining, who cares. And I'm glad to see some of my favorite posters like BSB, Lost Jarv and DocP are not only knowledgeable about film, but that they have their political ducks in a row too. And they seem to be sitting on the good side of the fence.
-
How is this? You are a cunt! Is that better you fucking cumstain?
-
ElectricDreams and elvenblade have slimed back into the Speed Racer TB after it dropped off the front page to defend themselves.
-
And by tremendous I mean stupid and pathetic. "Why don't you and lie in your own shit u spacemonkey!" Classic stuff. Oh, and it's "where" to find me, not "were" to find me.
-
just a pillow biter more like
-
Lost Jarv, you have David Frum to thank for that one. He and Celine Dion make me embarrassed to be a Canadian.
-
Hawaiian - thanks, dawg.
MasterYoda: "Xiphos you are king of the pillow biters" is definitely the most ill-informed statement since Cheney's "dead-enders" claim. -
If you are going to correct typos here, then do not write in idiot txtspeak. And there's nothing sadder than threatening violence on the internet. Loser
-
was eerily similar to how the drippy little whore posts. Are you related to it?
-
Wanker
-
Although Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were arguably unnecessary and literally overkill, the Nazis and the Japanese were equally brutal to civilian populations, and in greater numbers, in Europe and Asia. The lesson being, fight like hell when your leaders and government wage illegal wars because the blowback affects everyone.
-
The whore doesn't use Txtspeak. I fucking hate it- is it that hard to press 2 more keys?
-
Come now- You've also got Brian Adams, Avril "I'm a musician that can't play my instrument and a punk with a stylist" Lavigne on that list as well. But cheers for the props & the info.
-
and I also read that they bluffed that Bomb number 3 would be Tokyo. When they didn't have a bomb number 3. I also read that arguably, Hiroshima/Nagasaki actually saved lives in the long run- because a protracted war in Japan would have been truly horrendous in terms of civilian casualties. I don't know about that though. Regarding Dresden, this has been in the news a lot over here recently, because I think we're meant to apologise for it (like slavery, the Empire, etc) and to be honest, I'm a bit pissed off about it. Urban England was fucking bombed to ribbons (have you seen what coventry looks like now- it's all 50's architecture and fucking horrible), so why do we have to apologise?
-
What exactly is holding us back from winning the war in Afghanistan? If it's all the anti-war criticism and rhetoric, HOW exactly is it holding us back from winning? What do the soldiers need that they aren't getting?
-
what he wants is carte blanche to commit some absoute atrocities. That's what he thinks the military are lacking, and he's made the mental jump that the reason they haven't got carte blanche is because of mouthy fuckers like us on aintitcool.com. The worm.
-
"I also read that arguably, Hiroshima/Nagasaki actually saved lives in the long run- because a protracted war in Japan would have been truly horrendous in terms of civilian casualties. I don't know about that though."
I believe the argument was that without the shock and awe of a nuclear attack, the Japanese would've withstood more firebombing campaigns (like the kind that decimated Tokyo and killed thousands) which would have added up to more cities and people dead. It's hard to say though. A more targeted firebombing attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've completely done in the Japanese military, they could still have easily surrendered I'd think.
(btw, how does one skip lines in these talkbacks?)
What I hate is how everyone is so accepting of the fact that killing civilians en masse during WW2 was OKAY just because everyone else was doing it. No, it wasn't okay. -
do this but without the spaces
-
I guess God was looking out for the Kokurans that day. Not so much the Nagasakians or Hiroshimans. God's just funky that way I guess.
-
becaues WW2 does not in any way compare to the current clusterfuck. And these idiots that think it does should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
-
was Clinton's fault.
-
hmmmm its a tough call on dresden approx. 30 000 people killed in one raid compared with 60 000 killed in london in the entire blitz, it was also flooded with refugees at the time so it does look pretty harsh and is nothing to be proud of, Dresden was an important industrial and to some extent military target, by then the air campaign was designed to break german morale- which does sound suspiciously like terrorism to me.
ultimately i agree that it was probably the right decission at the time, that doesnt mean i dont think an apology is a bad thing, its what grown-ups do after all.
and jarv u are right to criticise some of the muppets on here but your potty mouth does you no favours
-
Fucking sorry ;)
-
very simply, because it is debasing and meaningless. It is a transparent attempt to transfer guilt from Germany to the UK. I'm not saying that Dresden was right or wrong, but what I'm saying is that to apologise for it now means nothing- it isn't the current population/politicians that were responsible. They/ We had no say in it and should therefore bear no responsibility for it.
-
I can't understand a fraction of the shit I hear on BBC-America. Like they recommend, I turn on the Closed Caption. Bloody 'ell!
-
Uh... the Russians already tried that. See: Charlie Wilson's War. And that was a tame Hollywood rendering of it. I'm actually an American IN Pakistan right now, and I know many Pakistanis who had been to Afghanistan during the 1980s (military, covert military, and uh... "civilians")... the shit the Russians were doing was incomprehensible. And the Afghani communists were even worse than the Russians. Whatever atrocities anyone might have in mind, we will never be able to top what the USSR did, and it didn't win them the war either (the Afghani insurgency, though making no headway in a miraculous 'defeat' of the USSR, were not exactly in danger of disappearing before we started to ship them critical weapons). The other thing is, were we to adopt that route, Pakistan, this country, would jump in, regardless of what the government wants. The country would splinter, and half the armed forces (maybe even the half with nukes) and civilians would run over the border going nuts. You don't need a particularly active imagination to figure out how this could pretty much mean a WW3-style scenario of biblical apocalyptic proportions.
-
by the way- I know lots of Germans and I don't think they have anything to apologise for. Except always beating us on penalties.
-
Japan has yet to acknowledge or apologize or pay restitution for their war crimes committed in China. But seeing as how China will likely surpass Japan in the next decade or so as the preeminent Asian economic power, I think China will have the last laugh. The bad part is that that's when the oil runs out.
-
and what I basically mean is that I despise the concept of collective responsibility- we are not answerable for the sins of our fathers, and nor should we be.
-
Some people actually want that, so they can get to Heaven. Yeah, I can't believe it's the 21st century either.
-
this is what I mean- did modern Japan do it? No, of course they didn't. I'm off, have fun.
-
Apr 23, 2008 11:04:45 AM CDT
GERMANS I'VE MET HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE NICEST PEOPLE EVER
by bringingsexyback
Just wanna give concurring props on that. I forgive the Japanese because of Ninja Warrior and assorted Japanese cultural exports.
-
Hearing eyewitnesses relate accounts of how the Russians would target entire villages suspecting that they were harboring insurgents. A Soviet helicopter would land in the village, a few guys would get out, run around shooting some people, grab some women, get back to the chopper, and leave. A few hours later, the chopper would return, hover a few hundred feet above the ground, and dump the naked, still moving, bodies of the women. And that's just when they wanted to scare the locals, sometimes their strategy was to eliminate them completely (the "turn it into a parking lot" tactic). That didn't work. And we can't possibly top that.Truth is, the American military knows full well it has to win that battle for hearts and minds we keep hearing about. Hence having a few UAE troops on the ground in Afghanistan because the locals can relate to other Muslims better, and all sorts of stuff like that. There's no way the anti-war camp is interfering with that drive at all. But it's still not working well enough. A little bit of progress is easy to disrupt with just one random suicide bombing. We need overwhelming progress and in a hurry, in order for that success to survive such tests.
-
cretin over to others- I also want to make clear that I don't think any of this is anything for any nation to be proud of (and the submorons that chant "2 world wars and 1 world cup" are really poor examples of humanity)and the correct way of dealing with it is to acknowledge that it happened, but not apologise; to remember the past, but not revel or wallow in it. If that makes sense.
-
The crazy thing is the other side wants it too. I can see why so many otherwise sane people will honestly believe that Osama's in cahoots with the CIA or that 9/11 was an inside job in order to make sense of the situation.What a recipe for disaster.
-
I'll throw my derby into the ring. I'm not sure dropping the bombs on a civilian population, twice, was necessary. They probably could have dropped one off the coast of Japan and let the shock and awe factor sick into Hirohito. In 1945, I imagine seeing a mushroom cloud would have been like witnessing the finger of God. That said, I agree that comparing WWII to what's going on in the Middle East right now is an insult to the Allied forces who fought and bled to liberate Europe and Asia.
-
There's two main reasons I think that NATO will not be able to defeat them.1) They're not a bunch of militants or insurgents. They (the religious youth of Afghanistan) were the backbone of the forces that drove out the Russians, and are now old guys commanding new young guys. They know what they're doing militarily. Look at the fact that, like normal Sunnis (which the Taliban actually are, religiously speaking), they abhorred suicide bombing until Al-Qaeda finally won them over with the winning argument that it was the answer to NATO airpower. What is airpower but a bomb that does a lot of collateral damage? That's what suicide bombing achieves too, though without the ability to strike anywhere at any time. It's like their mini-AirForce for attacks on convoys. This rationalization won over the Taliban commanders despite incredibly clear anti-suicide injunctions in the Islamic religion. The lesser of two evils and all that. This is just one example to illustrate how they are a military force without a national military's means for the moment. The Taliban also later conquered an Afghanistan in the midst of civil war, so they've been fighting non-stop there for more than two decades.2) Carrying on from the last point, the Taliban's ranks are very well-disciplined, as religiously indoctrinated youth are easy to keep in line. They might even be better disciplined than the soldiers in Western armies. And on top of that... they want it more. Listen to the comments coming out of NATO commanders. The Taliban rank and file actually believe they're fighting for God. In NATO's case, maybe Bush believes he's fighting for God, but our guys on the ground there are SANE, NORMAL guys like US. They worry about LIVING, about their fellow man. The grunts on the Taliban side all share the same zealous faith of their leaders. They just want it more. So if this really is a Westerners-who-want-WW3 vs. Muslims-who-want-WW3, then the West is in for a rude awakening because that's what it comes down to. The Quran-thumping Muslims want it more than the Bible-thumping Christians.
-
If it took two consecutive cities getting nuked to force the Japanese to surrender, I doubt a demonstration would have done much besides waste a nuke.
-
The "Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives" arguments I've seen used Okinawa (roughly 100,000 Japanese died and I can't remember how many US deaths, but it was a lot) as a means of extrapolating the death toll an invasion of Japan's main island. Also, I always think of the "saved lives" as mostly in terms of the tens of thousands of US soldiers who would have died in the invasion (as opposed to none using nukes), and the Japanese casualties secondary. Japan was defeated at that point, but the US wanted to force a surrender so the US could dictate the terms of that surrender. Also, if I remember correctly, the Soviets were itching to help with the invasion/reconstruction and the US wanted none of that (ie Korea).
-
...the arms race, as mad as it was, most probably saved the world from WWIII.
As for what it would have taken to defeat Japan, read The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb by George Feifer. -
When Dresden is invoked, as an atrocity, it usually refers to the way the bombing was carried out. Fire bombs, which were particularly heinous. No one truly knows the actual casualty figures, but what all agree is that they were disproportinate to the actual bombing, because in total tonnage, it was less than some other cities, but because of the incendiary devices used, it created a firestorm that was devastating. Any time weapons that produce terror are used, incendiary, chemical, biological, radiological, it provokes deep seated responses in people as being extreme even for warfare. There are conventions and prohibitions over the use of certain weapons - and for good reason. Another thing about Dresden, is that it was not considered a high value military target, but this may be revisionist thinking at work. As for an apology, you are quite correct that none should be forthcoming. I do think in some circumstances that a gov't must apologize for the actions that a previous generation caused, but generally, those situations, are for crimes against humanity. An argument can be made for just what that constitutes, but in my mind, there are some crimes so self evident, that it is not debatable.
-
...in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would have been almost unimaginably worse for the Japanese civilian population if an invasion had taken place.
-
...don't forget the particularly nasty trick the Soviets had of dropping dolls/toys containing explosives on Afghan villages. Kid picks up the dolly and KA-BOOM...no hand and there's goes half her face!Completely agree with you about not getting Pakistan actively involved (see: driving them in that direction) by (I hate this completely over-used term) "carpet bombing" Afghanistan. Whatever that means anymore.It's also a fact that the terror bombings in WWII, as started by the Luftwaffe over Rotterdam, ended up having the exact opposite effect of stiffening the resolve of the civilian population. Hence the Londoners "stiff upper lip" during the Blitz.Anyone who doesn't think the Japanese military was working as hard as possible to develop their own nukes to drop on the US is seriously naive. Also, I think Truman might've re-considerd using nukes if he'd been made aware of the effects of radiation poisioning, etc. Who knew? The projected Allied casualties for invading Japan proper was in the millions. Man, many more Japanese civilians would've died in the process as they were issued sharpened bambo spears and ordered to fight to the death.Finally, and this is for Xiphos, while it's true that strategic bombing in WWII was to reduce the capacity for the enemy to produce more bullets, bombs and butterbeans for the troops, it was also intended to kill those very civilians pumping out the material. Read Chuck Yeagers first book about one mission where he and his wingman were ordered to strafe a French civilian refuge column. It was to clear the way for a US Army armored column trying to advance. Does that make Chuck a terrorist or murderer? No, not in my opinion but to say ANY combatant won't target civilians is just not true. However, there are many examples of US airman boring into the ground with their aircraft to avoid killing civilians. And we certainly don't do the kind of shit the Soviets did in Afghanistan!
-
This book doesn't take sides, it reports the facts. After reading the book, our bumbling of Iraq makes perfect sense. There is no way possible that the amount of mistakes made were an accident. Literally every decision was flawed and worked to prolong our occupation. And make friends of Cheney even richer.
During the Gulf War, Cheney said we should not occupy Iraq because it would result in a quagmire (and not the good giggidy giggidy kind). He has had a hard on for privitizing the majority of governmental departments, including the military, for years. The devil, I mean Cheney, want to do this to make him and his friends a lot of money.
If you think we invaded Iraq to kill Saddam, stabilize the region, or bring down oil prices, you are horribly naive. Read Imperial Life In The Emerald City and Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and you will have a completely new understanding of exactly what is going on. -
I doubt an invasion would have been worse. Look at Iraq today, that's with an Iraqi society tearing each other apart, a civilian population likely larger than 1940s Japan, and we're still around the death toll of one a-bomb 5 years on. For the most part, civilians would've had an opportunity to survive during an invasion because American troops during WW2 didn't (for the most part) do the shit that the Nazis or Japanese did (or that Americans were accused of doing later in Korea and Vietnam).But that does lead to the possibility of the Russians getting involved with the invasion. Or the fact that we might have run out of the manpower necessary to remobilize enough troops to invade Japan, dragging on the war for another good few years. Even if it might have been the right thing to do (assuming it would've resulted in fewer civilian casualties, or perhaps the same amount spread over an extended amount of time and geography), it wouldn't have been the smart thing to do.
-
A: A collision course with wackiness!
-
I read a local book translated into English here about the Jihad In Afghanistan or whatever it was called, based off all these interviews with fighters after they won the war. After the Russians left, they armed the puppet Afghani Communist government with scud missiles and all sorts of other nasty stuff with which they held out on their own for a good 2-3 years. The Islamic fighters recalled in interviews how hilarious the scuds (genuine WMD-style weapons) were because "the missiles would shatter upon hitting the mountains and we were not affected in the least", that's very near to the exact sentence I read.I don't know if it's possible to flatten mountains in reality. Israel couldn't even flatten Hezbollah with insanely heavy duty conventional munitions in Lebanon (as well as napalm and cluster bombs...). And that was in CITIES.
-
(This is not mine. Names and titles have been slightly changed to promote objectivity)
America, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. One of the positive things about War is that it brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of NOBILITY upon the peoples who have COURAGE to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
... We as Americans accept life and love it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: we would rather conceive of life as DUTY and STRUGGLE.
America is the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production. Now and always, American believes in HOLINESS AND IN HEROISM; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.
See any Parallels? -
Let me guess, that quote graces us via the Third Reich
-
Japan in the 1940's was a vastly different country than exists today. The Emperor, although even then, not the leading political force, did exert tremendous sway over the average person. In the event of an invasion, if he had exhorted his people to fight, they without a doubt would have done so. Combine that with the simple natural inclination to fight invaders, and coupled with propoganda that had U.S. soldiers commiting attrocities (never mind that is the other way around), then you can see that a determined, and desperate populace would have put up one helluva fight. It would have been very bloody, all around. We would still have won, but the cost would have been enormous. Both for us, and for the Japanese.
-
I read about half of that, and never noticed the author mention that, while the Japanese government and the Japanese military were at odds, it was the Japanese military in power, not the government. I know about this stuff, it's sad: the government knew they were defeated and wanted to prevent further suffering but the military leadership was refusing to surrender.
-
Clearly my point in using Carpet Bombing as an example was missed. I never proposed carpet bombing Iraq or Afghanistan. I was simply illustrating what can be accomplished by the military when civilians and the media do not interfere with the job of the military, which is to achieve victory over an enemy and protect the interest of the people it servers (at least in the United States of America). Carpet bombing was a means to an end. It help to achieve an objective. I could very well have used the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example. Imagine if you will, the American media or civilians, criticzing every move the Allied forces made during WWII. Imagine the Allies not being able to carpet bomb (no smart bombs then) during WWII. How successful would they have been? Could they have achieved victory sooner, if at all? Would the war have been prolonged and if so, at was cost to Allied lives and interest? I think the media and many civilians criticize the U.S. military far too much, to the point that it renders them unable to carry out their duties as effectively as they could otherwise. The enemy we face now does not share the common beliefs and values that this country was founded on or continues to thrive upon. They threaten our very existence and the American way of life. What American citizen wouldn't want to defeat them as quickly and effectively as possible. That seems logical. It is a shame the civilians are too often killed in war, but again, that is the nature of war. I'll ask again, would you rather see your family killed or that of your enemy? I think its a fair question. Would you rather maintain your way of life, or have a foreign aggressor or religion force its way upon you? Lost Jarv, I mentioned the Syrians and Iranians in my previous post, because they have alot to due with the war in Irag. The supply weapons to insurgents that are in turn used on American and Coalition forces. Switching gears, I understand many of you disagree with my post. That is fine, and understandable. What's with the name calling and personal attacks though? How does that advance your arguments? I assure you that if you think it hurts my feelings, you are wrong. I get a good laugh out of it though. I am curious as to why you feel compelled to curse someone out that you don't agree with? Why do you find it necessary to sling insults? I am an American citizen. I pay taxes. According to the Constitution, I have a right to express my views, same as anyone on this post. That is what our soldiers are fighting to protect. Freedom.
-
Apr 23, 2008 12:56:53 PM CDT
hyprkc, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with American Freedom
by chuckmc
Michael Scheuer (a former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit in Afghanistan) writes in "Imperial Hubris" that the war on Iraq is based on politically motivated false intelligence from exiled Iraqi's who were looking to overthrow Saddam. The CIA told the White House that it was bad intelligence, but they refused to believe it. He calls the invasion of Iraq "a sham causing more instability than it prevents". At one point in time American forces had Bin Laden and most of the remnants of Al Qaeda trapped in a valley in Afghanistan. However because America had started pulling forces out of Afghanistan in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, the US did not have sufficient troops in place to finish the job and Bin Laden et al escaped into Pakistan. He also says that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda feel they are fighting a defensive war against "imperialist America" due to America's backing of "brutal and corrupt" Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Yemen, pre Gulf War I Saddam in Iraq, pre revolution Shaw of Iran) and Israel. If America stopped giving aid to these Muslim dictatorships and Israel and pulled all the US troops out of their bases in these countries, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would no longer have a reason to fight. I have read that Bin Laden is happy that the US has invaded Iraq, as it has succeeded in 1) being a huge propaganda victory for Al Qaeda in the Muslim world and 2) has replaced an anti Iran anti Al Qaeda anti Shia Sunni Iraq goverment (Saddam) with a pro Iran (and more inline with Al Qaeda thinking) Shia Iraq government elected by the dominant Shia population in Iraq. As for the overthrow of the Shaw in Iran, due to the shift in CIA emphasis from intelligence collected on the ground to intelligence collected electronically in the 1970s, in a backwater nation like Iran they never saw the revolution coming, even when there was widespread rioting in the streets. As a result, by the time the CIA was aware of what was happening, it was too late for the US to do anything to stop the overthrow of the Shaw. It had nothing to do with the Carter administration as they were cut down at the knees by a blind CIA.
-
I'm going outside now, to kick a pebble in dejection and think about what I did.
-
Node sniffing pickles
-
Okay, but I still have serious doubts that the Japanese were so willing to surrender (that article hardly qualifies as objective, the author was clearly arguing a case). I'd say the strongest evidence against the military leadership being ready to agree to the terms of surrender is that Hiroshima was nuked, Nagasaki was nuked, and they still continued the war effort for a what was it, another week or so before surrendering. That just doesn't seem to mesh with the notion that they had been looking for the chance to surrender for months.
-
This "generational war", as Sandra Day O'Connor called it, would be over. we haven't even seen Jesus come back yet . . . so who wants that?
-
You make sense when talking about World War 2, but that does not apply to the situation right now, in Afghanistan at least. Can you come up with actual real examples of what tactics the military could use to win the war in Afghanistan that are being denied to them by the anti-war camp? It's definitely not "taking the gloves off" because as we were just discussing, the Russians tried that right in front of us without success.There just isn't a military solution to Afghanistan. If there is, I'd like someone to point out what exactly it is.Where I lost you was "The enemy we face now does not share the common beliefs and values that this country was founded on or continues to thrive upon. They threaten our very existence and the American way of life. What American citizen wouldn't want to defeat them as quickly and effectively as possible.".... uh... wtf? When was the last time an Afghani or an Iraqi even set off a terrorist attack on US soil, much less annihilate all of Western civilization which is what you're describing. It's utterly ludicrous. The Taliban were not out to destroy any way of life, they were out to conquer Afghanistan. You'd think they might have tried to conquer Pakistan if they really had aspirations outside of their borders, but up until now, when NATO forced them out of Afghanistan, they didn't even raise a fuss in Pakistan's tribal regions despite them being overwhelmingly ethnically and religiously sympathetic. They could have easily laid siege to the rest of Pakistan from there. They could do so even now, yet they aren't (the insurgency in the tribal regions is still mostly a Pakistani-militant thing, which the Afghanis sometimes involve themselves in). And you want me to believe the Taliban are going to somehow conquer the region, then Asia, then sail or fly across half the planet, land a million troops on US soil and conquer everything? Because that's what it would take to actually threaten the Western way of life. Just threaten. To actually destroy our way of life would require a complete annihilation of nearly three quarters of the planet. Last I checked, the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents didn't know how to crash the moon into the Earth or knock our planet out of its orbit around the sun.And to say that it's not the Taliban, not the Iraqis, but AL-QAEDA that's going to do all of the above is even more impossible to fathom.
-
ask Jarv, Abom, or Kloipy. I'm sure they will "fill you in"
-
1) Global climate change2) The crash of Western economies, ceding momentum to the Chinese, Indians, and maybe eventually the Russians too (though they wield more political/military clout than economic). Although they all have adopted our way of life too.
-
There is an excellent NYT piece on just that subject in last saturday's New York Times. You can read it online. Far from being independant and possessing journalistic integrity, the media - and I am talking about the likes of CBS, ABC, NBC and of course Fox, were very complicit in the Pentagon's presentation of the war. That is: they were the mouth pieces of the Pentagons war effort, and did not practice any independant journalism. The media in this country, were so compromised by the gov't, that all have tried their very best to ignore what the NYT has presented. You will get no mainstream reporting on the fact that the media supported the war effort - at least not from any other that the New York Times.
-
If Al-Qaeda alone were given a country, it'd turn out to be Saudi-Arabia, exactly. The Saudi state is a religious Wahabi state. Al-Qaeda are Salafis, the same sort of fundamentalist, literalist, Muslims. Same laws, same everything. The difference? One has money, one doesn't.And yet Saudi-Arabia is one of our strongest and dearest allies.The Taliban aren't Wahabi/Salafi, they are Sunni. Believe it or not, Afghanistan under Taliban rule was more moderate (in doctrine) than Saudi-Arabia. We would've seen that more clearly had they had any money (and responsibility, such as holding the Islamic holy sites) as tempering influences.The biggest blunder in contemporary history was the decision of the United States to abandon the Afghanis after their war with Russia. All the elements of what later became the Northern Alliance, the Taliban, etc. were ready to ally in one government for the sake of Afghanistan, all we had to do was pony up the support for them to rebuild. Like I said, even if it were a theocracy (although it wasn't, they came together to form a sort of democracy of all the fighters), it would've been a more moderate one than Saudi-Arabia.
-
Why are we so scared of losing our way of life when India isn't scared of losing our way of life despite having been through three wars with Pakistan, and directly fighting the militants from the tribal regions in their opening salvoes after their independence from Britain.If any country in the world has something to lose, or is actually at any risk, it's Hindu India. Yet they don't care beyond Pakistan.Why is our way of life threatened? Why is Iran, the Shi'ite embodiment of everything we will fight to the death to prevent Afghanistan or Iraq from becoming (in Afghanistan, it'd be a Sunni version of Iran), so yeah, why is Iran a threat to our way of life (despite the fact that they have our way of life) and not... the Chinese way of life? The Chinese are atheists, the Indians are Hindus, those are more offensive to Muslims like Al-Qaeda who allegedly want to destroy the world?Truth is, Osama espouses rhetoric, like any good politician. He was ready, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to ally with the United States and fight Saddam on behalf of Saudi-Arabia. He was just betrayed when our infidel asses touched down in his country and did it for ourselves and kept a presence there.Why aren't the Russians scared? They fought and died in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists that allegedly threaten "our way of life" have it in for the Russians considering how much more havoc they wreaked in Afghanistan, yet only a decade later, they don't give a damn about Russia anymore. And yet Russia has its own Islamic problem in Chechnya and other Central Asian territories. But they don't seem to be too worried about being wiped off the map magically and losing their way of life. Hmm.And to restate, the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, even the Saudis, slowly but surely, have all either already adopted or are slowly adopting the Western way of life.Another fact. All the harshest laws of a theocratic "Shariah" state, are already in place in many of our allies, like Pakistan, like Saudi-Arabia. But those laws aren't the ones we're afraid of as human rights violations. The ones we're afraid of are the ones banning Western culture. Because that would hit our wallets.
-
idiotic. The US came together as a country back then. The president asked people to sacrifice and they did. Corporations like Ford Motors and Boeing were almost fully devoted to the war effort. In 1941, there were 3 million cars produced in the US. For the remainder of the war less than 150 were produced. Americans worked 12-16 hour shifts so that bombers could roll off assembly lines every 62 minutes. This was not a war about oil or record breaking corporate profits. It was a war to liberate a continent of people from the clutches of a deranged lunatic who placed zero value on human life. A mere 60 years later we've become a country incapable of making any sacrifices and worse, we have a joke of a president who has not once in over 5 years of war asked the people to make any sacrifices for the good of the troops. It's pathetic that it takes $4 gas for us fatasses to cut back on our comsumption and not a prolonged and bloody war.
-
The Taliban are the Afghani wing of the Sunni party/group that represents Muslims in Pakistan and India. They are called Deobandi Sunnis (a big deal here in Pakistan because there's so much sectarian conflict, whereas 99% of Afghanis are Deobandi so they don't need to identify themselves).These guys were not a part of the Muslim League that fought for Pakistan's independence and the two-state solution. They were a part of this group called Jamiat Ulema Hind (wiki it). They were allied with Gandhi's Congress Party and opposed partition. They were a party of the top Sunni clerics from across South Asia. They wrote "fatwas" with signatures of nearly the entire body of clerics saying that their jihad was non-violent struggle with Gandhi to get one united, independent India.They instituted many of Gandhi's favorite measures like the Quit India movement, and even the first call for Indian independence (rather than autonomy) BEFORE Gandhi and his party did.These are the same revered predecessors of the Afghani Taliban.One of them, Maulana Azad got a position in the first Indian government. They name government schools after him in India still. The Indian government still pays respect to these guys (they are called Deobandi because they originated in a city in India named Deoband).The Taliban revere Maulana Azad and all those guys.(A splinter group broke off at partition to help the Islamic movements in Pakistan when they realized it was an inevitable reality, they compete in Pakistani politics to this day and helped form the Taliban with the help of the Pakistani intelligence agencies from students in their madrassah network that were from the tribal regions and Afghanistan, with the help of Benazir Bhutto's government)
-
When fundamentalist Muslims absolutely despise Socialism? It's worse by Islamic standards than Capitalism. The economy of a theocratic Islamic state would be a capitalist economy with some socialist-like measures for charity.All this crap about ending our way of life is just that... crap. It's not Western civilization that's at risk. It's Western corporate culture that's at risk. It's not the United States that should worry, it's McDonald's, KFC, etc. They are the ones who benefit from all this.The defense contractors are already beyond all of this. Haliburton's headquarters are in a Muslim Arab country in the mideast for Christ's sake.If America ever magically "collapses", it's going to be as a victim of it's own way of life.Even Western culture will survive any sort of catastrophe in America. It's ironic. If the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or the Iraqis pray to Allah to crash an asteroid into the US to end us (the only strategy that stands a chance of working), then Western civilization and culture would live on over there because McDonald's, KFC, Haliburton, all these guys are over there already and have become a part of them.
-
..acts like one of those sleezeball corporate fuckers that gets caught on camera after he's been cheatin' and steeling from people in his ouwn company. Bunch of mass murdering fucks.
-
Here is the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1208977647-lgOKopQoqrWQF3C6AQ6Tgg -
The scenarios in his novels make too much sense. Besides the whole flying planes into buildings deal, or the use of nukes by terrorists, he also dealt with the issue of a post-Saddam Iraq (he theorized that Iraq would just merge with Iran because of the sizable Shi'ite majority and then invade Saudi-Arabia... which would have actually happened had we not been there as the reason for Saddam's fall), and rogue Islamic nations.How to deal with an Osama figure after 9/11? Clancy would've agreed to the Taliban's offer to turn him over to a Pakistani or Saudi religious court. Let the Saudis try him, convict him, and let a Saudi prince behead him in public. Exactly a scenario from his novels. That just seems so richly plausible, it would've been worth a shot.
-
Look for this interview back in late 2001 I believe.I've never seen O'Reilly so humbled before on his own show. And willfully.The major lesson of that appearance? Clancy said military occupations are destined to fail because soldiers are trained to SHOOT THINGS, not enforce civil law. That's a job for the police.We could have fixed Iraq by now if we sent in 50,000 SWAT three years ago and were training and arming Iraqi SWAT rather than an Iraqi Army (we should have left the Baathist Iraqi Army intact, but controlled it via puppet generals).
-
I do not know enough about the various schools of Islamic thought to either agree or disagree with what you have posted - other than the known Sunni/Shia split, and that there are splinter groups within those two major branches. However, the main reason for the invasion of Afghanistan - Tom Clancy notwithstanding, is that the Taliban supported, and protected Al Qaida. Bin Laden, had given the go-ahead for the attack, and was also protected by Al Qaida. The U.S. - wanting to do all within it's power to destroy or at least severely cripple Al Qaida - and after having suffered a terrorist attack on our soil, perpetuated by said group, it is without a doubt a defensible position to want to destroy such an entity, invaded Afghanistan to do just such. As a purely military objective, it was a resounding success at first. Far moreso than in Iraq. However, there have been setbacks, and consequences, whether foreseen or otherwise, that seem to indicate that the war there is not going to meet all of it's objectives, and will also result in creating more problems in the future. The Taliban where ruthless in cracking down on the Opium trade, now, warlords have re-emerged and are using profits from the drug trade to increase their own fiefdoms. We have severely hurt Al Qaida, but have not been able to destroy it. But, I truly beleive we were justified in going into Afghanistan, once the Taliban refused to hand over the Al Qaida leadership.
-
On September 21, 2001, the Taliban responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks.[90]
On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law.[109][110] Pakistan, recently recast as an ally of the west, is believed to have rejected the offer (even though they still recognized the Taliban).
On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.[111] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.^ It would've been easy as hell to get them to hand him over to the Saudis. For one thing, the Saudis actually had "Shariah" courts (the Wahabi version where the government can make up any verdict it likes) whereas Pakistan didn't. I still say that 90% of this War on Terror should have ended in 2001 with a Saudi prince standing over the decapitated body of Bin Laden on TV. -
And yes this is a truly sad statement on that culture. America is the only place in the West left standing at this point with enough force of arms/balls to back up it's ideals, as compromised as they might be. Europe has long since buckled on free speech is barely able to publish controversial cartoons at this point. I think that if something like you're describing actually happened you'd be shocked at how fast every other country in the West would curl in into a fetal position and watch as China, Russia and billions of Raging Islamic Lunatics roll back centuries of progress.
-
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but if a foreign country is housing terrorists that are not only strongly suspected, but have also bragged about carrying out the attack, and it temporizes by saying 'show us evidence that Bin Laden (the Head of the group) was complicit' well, I have no compuction about blowing the hell out said foreign country while it temporizes to try and let our enemies escape.
-
Was brilliant.
Hyprkc is a believer, not a "terrible human being', Jarv. He's the perfect specimen of someone who has bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. He represents a wide swath of public opinion that has been carefully constructed and promoted. I'm not being conspiracy guy here, public opinion is guided all the time, advertising is the most ubiquitous example, and the kind of things hyprkc is repeating is essentially the end result of a very successful ad campaign.
The architects of these occupations need a scapegoat for the failures, if they truly are failures. Savage Lucy touched on it- regular Americans would most likely be horrified by the truth of what is really happening, the reasons why we're at war in the Middle East (and I'm not claiming that I have those answers, just that they obviously aren't the pre-packaged lies we've been fed) So regular Americans are lied to, but also complicit in the process of being duped. People like hyprkc allow themselves to believe that the 'failures' are somehow caused by some kind of supernatural weakness in the spiritual fabric of America, which is the fault of Americans who don't believe in the war. It's a very clever, self-replicating lie, since it assuages the guilt of the true-believer, while playing on his or her native superstitions/prejudices and promoting strife and conflict within the population that distracts everyone from finding out what is really going on, which in turn gives the people who control the levers of power enough room to maneuver. I think the media play a role in this process, but not in any sort of secret cabalistic way. The media are a tool, but so far still function as the fourth estate, albeit in a withered capacity, compared to recent history. I don't believe people who claim that the media are essentially like the Soviet organ 'Izvestia', which was the 'official' news source of the Communist party. Even Fox news, the closest analog we have to Izvestia, still relies on the degree to which it's players are or aren't indoctrinated in the propaganda coming from the White House.
I think where people like hyprkc come from is a likable but ultimately foolish way of thinking- they associate any failure as an offense to their patriotism. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, they've never figured out that it is in fact the duty of the patriot to question the legitimacy of his or her government. One of my favorite quotes of all time is from Mark Twain: Loyalty to your country always, loyalty to your government when they deserve it."
One of the most popular themes in Izvestia was the constant blurring of the lines between the Nation and the Party, so that the two became indistinguishable from one another. Once that was accomplished, the Party could do anything it wanted, no matter how terrible it was for the Nation, and denounce any dissent as 'anti-patriotic'. Sound familiar?
Lost Jarv, BSB, Node, Stevie,morGoth, Xiphos,Toad, Doc, chuckmc, wereplatypus... Awesome posts all, this has been a frigging weird but amazing talkback.
Too bad Antonius never resurfaced.
-
"China, Russia, and billions of Raging Islamic Lunatics"The Chinese have a decidedly Western idealogy. Confucius didn't give them Communism. The Soviet Union, for all its faults, kept up with the "West" in most areas of progress for most of the 20th century. Russia, if it were able to get on a roll now, would be like a leaner, meaner, version of the USSR, without many of the drawbacks. And both of these countries have a decidedly Western culture. China and Russia (and India) ARE the West, the new face of it. They reap all the benefits of Capitalism while sticking to other purely Western philosophies (Socialism, Communism, maybe Fascism one day, etc.)One way to know that for sure is that if America was wiped off the map, and China/India/Russia took the lead, the global porn industry wouldn't be affected at all. That's probably a better indicator of Western civilization and free speech than what we typically think of when we think of "free speech".Maybe the Islamic civilization vs. Western civilization would carry on, but China/India/Russia between them are far more experienced in dealing with it, and have better resources (most of the world's population for one thing). All Europe would need to do is replace their American overlords for Russians.
-
I'm sorry to say but that's pretty illogical. If someone confesses to a crime in most systems of law, they usually still go through with a trial where there's still at least a semblance of an investigation. You're saying even that should've been tossed. Even though we give trials to far worse people than Bin Laden with far more innocent blood on their hands (like Milosevic for instance).Besides the fact that it didn't work and we didn't actually get Bin Laden. Which should have been a kind of obvious outcome and the main reason we should have tried a different angle to weasel Bin Laden out of there. Although aforementioned principles are nice and all.
-
There is the Tupac Shakur theory. He really isn't dead, he faked it all and is still alive. Though if you think about it, he has released more albums since his death than when he was alive. Thats a lot of "extra material".
Also the reference to the the theorist Macheveli who thought of faking your death to get at your enemies, and then being "ressurected" and the fact that you can clearly hear the words "Suge [Knight] shot me" on the first track of the first album after his death. Woo! -
You know McDonalds and KFC right? Well ive worked out why their chief executives, namely ronald and the colonel are at war. See, it would make sense for them to team up, and conquer the fast food world. But, The Colonel right, he's from kuntuky.... hes always wearing white.... he is Blatently part of the KKK. And Ronald, Well, ever noticed how hes got a big 'fro? Hes always wearing White makeup, hes got big feet, hes got big red lips as well (only just thoguht of that one) hes obviously black. So theres an unkown race war between the fast food chains
-
Apr 23, 2008 3:11:57 PM CDT
Besides, a Shariah court would have been more receptive to the o
by gill
We didn't need to actually have any evidence. The Saudis would have done what we told them. The Taliban trusted Pakistan, the UAE (even though the UAE is now fighting in Afghanistan), and Saudi-Arabia.The Taliban's offer to turn him over to an Islamic court is playing it by the book. That's basic Islamic law. Muslims do not turn over other Muslims to non-Muslims. They were therefore doing the best they possibly could have by offering to turn him over to one of three nearby Muslim countries, all stong US allies with no moral qualms about manufacturing trials.That's such a basic part of Islamic law, for Sunnis, Shi'ites, ALL strains of Islam that to even demand that be changed is tantamount to attacking the Qur'an and the religion itself in principle. It's THAT ingrained into the religion. We should at least have understood that in advance and worked around it to get what we wanted. But we expected everyone to conform to our worldview and our exact ethical standards (for the most part, Islamic ethics, and all other systems of ethics are just varying versions of the same thing with subtle political differences here and there... this being one of them).
-
That was to read "A Shariah court would have been more receptive to the official 9/11 explanation than even YouTube"
-
Not at all, at least not on my part. The Taliban, were no shrinking violets. They had a short, but very brutal and oppressive regime. I admit, there are other regimes that where as bad or worse that we turned a blind eye to, or even supported, but none of those regimes housed terrorists that had attacked the continental United States. The Taliban temporized. With the imminent threat of extreme retaliation and invasion, and the destruction of their gov't staring down the barrel at them, they temporized. Why? Because they were complicit. Not in the planning or executing of the attack, but in the care and feeding of the attackers organization. They would have never turned over Bin Laden to anyone. Think about that. Your country, your poor country, is housing the mastermind behind the worst civilian attack by a foreign - or homegrown for that matter, terrorist on U.S. soil. The same United States that is the single greatest military power of all time. The same United States that has said, unequivocably, we will destroy you unless you hand over Bin Laden. The same United States that has the backing of much of the world in asking for the terrorist to be turned over to them. And what do you do? What Illogical thing do you do? No. I am not illogical. The U.S. was not illogical. The world was not iilogical. The Taliban, and any who try and defend their actions regarding Bin Laden - that who is illogical.
-
Everyone, regardless of affiliation, MUST read that article. One of the most illuminating stories Ive read from the MSM in quite a while.
-
Also, I never said that a trial 'should be tossed'. But if Bin Laden would have ever been brought to trial, that trial should have taken place in the United States.
-
that, by NOT handing over Bin Laden and starting this shitstorm of endless conflict (20+ years is my prediction), recruitin' is up. . . waaay up. There are Muslum children NOT EVEN BORN yet who will someday pick up a rusty AK-47 in defense of . . . well, whatever it is they'll be defending by then. In turn, we have little kids in America who'll turn 18 and head out to the next great outpost of terrorist agression, whereever it is, and wave THEIR flag for, well . . . whatever. You think that being poor in America makes you salty for combat, try living in the desert without A/C . . . both sides have plenty of poor, flagwaving illiterates to kill before this thing is over with.
-
prez, the White House would look like the interior of Wonka's Chocolate Factory (Chelsea looks like the consequence of an oompa-loompa gang bang). Happily, the numbers are on Obama's side (he WILL be the Democratic nom). Pennsylvania slipped last night (the state is akin to Mayberry on helium) but never mind--Obama is a cinch to win. But enough bickering, okay? Hey, here's my imitation of Ernest Borgnine (any McHALE'S NAVY rerun): "How did you eight balls ever get in the Navy??" Happy now? Goodnight and God bless (canned applause).
-
Immediately after 9/11, the entire country (or at least the entire rational part of the country that did not believe we 'got what we deserved') wanted, in fact, needed to confront an enemy that we could actually fight. Terrorists usually do not have a home country as a base of operations. They are usually far more furtive -even when they have the secret backing of some rogue countries. Such was not the case with Al qaida and the Taliban. Once the link had been established between the attack and Bin Laden, the Taliban presented a true target for a military solution. The Taliban had a very narrow window for avoiding conflict with the U.S. and they chose to lock that window.
-
In fact, I think both sides want that, especially in the weeks after 9/11. I almost wonder if all war is propigated just for the excuse to build Hero Factories. The molded heroic "professional" fights for all of us. . . and the latest models already come equiped with the "thousand yard stare" feature. This is to replace the Enemy Combatant model, which comes with a special water resevior for "torture play," as well as the Wheelchair Warrior with detatchable limbs. Too bad the Warrior Dream Jeep doesn't come with more armor, but sometimes the Hero Factory needs to cut costs. At least now, with so many Hero Factories in place, Christan and Muslin, East and West, all have plenty of Heroes on which to prop up their ideologies, and take out their mindless, unfettered agression. I guess everybody's winning this war.
-
God, I hope that you're wrong. I read that the superdelegates are swinging in Obama's direction (even though the 'ole sow will try every corrupt trick in the book to smear the Senator). Furthermore, the Democrats can't afford to ignore the Black vote. If that ole' douchenag wins the nomination, McCain is a shoo-in.
-
Hey, bashing Hollywood is fun. I'm not going to disagree. But don't you think they realize that the 'anti Iraq war' movies make no money? If a 'pro Iraq war' movie would make money don't you think that would be filling the multiplexes? I think that despite the commercial failure, it is still the role of an artist (of any measure) to put forth their point of view with little regard to financial success. If more 'neocons' want to write, direct, and/or fund a major motion picture showing their point of view, I welcome the change. Everyone on this board is right, but everyone is wrong too. They're opinions, people, and everyone is entitled to one. 'Facts' can be drudged up (and have) for all sides of the argument. Keep up the debate, though.
-
This was some of the best reading (and auxiliary reading via the NYT links) I've had in weeks. And thanks to the WWII discussion I just Netflixed Ken Burns' The War.
-
Apr 23, 2008 5:45:44 PM CDT
I think the MVTB (Most Valuable Talkbacker) Award should go to..
by samsquanch
GiLL.
No shit, right? Are you new to these parts, GiLL? -
Filmmakers, even the 'artistic' ones, are still trying to make money. Film is the most expensive media there is. I agree that for many war-doc filmmakers, the mission is to get the message out, and I applaud that, but these artists spend years working on these projects, and almost as a rule end up in massive financial debt. I'm sure they wouldn't be disappointed if their films became massive mainstream hits.
-
By becoming massive mainstream hits, their message would get out to more people. I'm just saying that most artists have a drive that can transcend money. Not to say that money gets ignored entirely. We are a society founded on capitalism after all.
-
Looks like I missed a good dustup! Crap! That's what I get for not checking this sight for a few days.
Conservatives...stay strong! Leftists...stay wacko! -
Although you're right up there in the Science Vs. so-called ID debate. GiLL took this TB to school with some valuable personal insight, as he said, as an American living in Pakistan.
-
Welcome to the party!
-
Apr 23, 2008 8:00:36 PM CDT
Actually, Rightsock's post just made me realize something...
by samsquanch
We talked about a lot of stuff, but there wasn't the usual right vs left bickering, at least not the really obvious kind. We actually DISCUSSED some TOPICS, and, a few really crazy posts aside, it was pretty civil. Makes my bi-political heart swell.
-
Yes indeedy. And didja notice that Cygnus was conspicuously absent? I'll bet he was just aching to post but fearing the righteous backlash from Mori, he stayed his hand. Smart move, for once.
-
Apr 23, 2008 11:32:47 PM CDT
ON THIS GREENGRASS FLICK, I WOULDN'T PUT IT IN THE SAME CATEGORY
by bringingsexyback
as the other anti-war movies ... This is Matt Damon we're talking here. Needless to say, he's got huge box office draw, especially teamed with his Bourne director. This movie may actually buck the trend.
-
I know, but in the context of Toad's post and your response, I thought it worth noting, to say the least.
-
...and you put down religion and faith while preaching that we have faith in scientific theory that does not have the physical evidence to prove many of the conclusions...yes, science tries to fill holes, but in the context of the existence of the planet and life on the planet, and our inability to know what evidence may have been completely destroyed in the history of our planet's existence, going through two, if I remember correctly, cataclysmic periods, one major impact on our planet that created the moon, which could have destroyed any physical evidence that, by the use of simple logic we can determine that science cannot possibly assume. So when you say something absolutely did not exist, based on your 'logic', it really just your belief, science cannot prove a universal negative, and considering such events, he fossil record will never be complet enough to prove the aspects of the theory that make claims on the origin of life, and of man. You can't fill a 'hole' or 'gap' if you don't know what came before the event that destroyed any possible trace or evidence life, much less a fossil...but let me get to the point, science is extremely limited because it is based on an ASSUMPTION; it's very method of proof PRESUPPOSES that only the material world exists because it relies on physical evidence. You wrote yourself that Intelligent Design is for the philosophy courses, not science, and I don't necessarily disagree, but philsosophy is also a method, and it relies on logic and reason, without presupposing that the universe is ONLY material. Philosophy, therefore, has the ability of discovering broader truths following the law of non-contradiction, not limited to the narrow scope of the scientfific method. Those who have FAITH in science, often mistakenly use the word logic to mean scientific. That is not necessarily the case. In short, something does not have to be scientifically proven in order for it to be true; science cannot make such a claim because the scientific method cannot prove such a claim. To claim that science is the measure of all truth is to make a claim based on a major assumption, which is a no-no in logic, the assumption being that universe is only made up of the material. It is an assumption because science has no way of proving it, not even by its own method.
So, unlike science, philosophy would not dismiss myth as pure fantasy, as Tolkien and Lewis always preach. Truth is also reflected in myth, because myth is a reflection of our true and objective desire. Like the objectivity of love and trust, science is too limited in scope to even consider desires to be objective, but just because objective desire cannot be physically proven, it is not a contradiction in logic. The same goes for a miracle. Science cannot prove the supernatural source, it can only admit its limit and say there is no scientific explanation. Philosophy however can use logic and deduction, and bring in the authority of history to determine the possibilities outside the physical dimension. Science is too limited to have a say on the truth of the spiritual possibilities, but the natural effects can serve as evidence when no natural cause can be found, in favor of the supernatural. That argment can be expanded to the existence of the universe, its complexity, and the many "why" questions science cannot explain. For example, one major question is 'why is there something rather than nothing?' when it comes to the victory of matter over anti-matter. This implies a finely tuned imbalance of matter and anti-matter in the early universe, but the laws of physics says is practically not possible...a major 'hole' they have yet to fill...but it is an example of the physical evidence of science supporting an Intelligence that may have 'finely tuned' the universe.
Intelligent Design is based on physical evidence, and can explain many of the 'why' questions and holes, it is not a mere rationalization...you're arrogant claim of a 'process' is the biggest rationalization assuming these major mysteries will somehow eventually fit neatly and consistenty with the scientific laws and theories that exist. The problem with that is the major theories that exist in the various areas of science don't even fit and contradict each other. For example, Einstein's general relativity does not fit with the standard model, with quantum theoritic principles, and what they can't make fit is the gravitational force. One of the many major roadblocks to the 'theory of everything' science thought it would have by now, but it is as far out of reach as ever with the major discoveries of the WMAP Satellite, many of you still seem extremely ignorant about. You keep saying the big bang is still a theory, the WMAP confirmed it, along with the age of the universe. There is observable evidence, the CMB, the cosmic microwave background, that reveals it. The universe DID have a beginning, it expanding, and this expansion will end our galaxy, an inevitable fact, however trillions of years distant. Until that discovery, science assumed the universe to be infinite, to always have existed, showing Geneisis to be way ahead of its time, and showing Tolkien and Lewis were right, myth does contain truth, and the Bible is the true myth. The true fulfillment of our objective desire. You ask how one distinguishes between fact and myth in the Bible, the answer is simple literary interpretation of each portion, determine as much as possible about the author and their intention, was it poetic, was it a historical, eyewitness account? Was it a song that reflects historical truth? It is literary and historic interpretation, along with logic and reason. The gospels for example are clearly meant to convey an eyewitness account of actual historical events that occurred. The simple fact that a miracle is reported doesn't make it a myth, or purely metaphorical; reporting that Jesus cured a blind man is what the author meant to convey from either his or another's witnessing of it. But the point of this argument is, science can't really contribue to this argument, the supernatural being out of its scope.
OK, so get updated on your science, the CMB confirmed the Big Bang, but there is no high technological probe or telescope that reveals that man is essentially a beast; no hard physical evidence, other than rationalization and fillin in the 'gaps' while assuming the origin, again rationalizing since any evidence of an origin of life could very possibly been destroyed forever during a cataclysmic event(not caused by SUV emissions, btw, but i can't prove that).
Again, in short, science is based on a major assumption, therefore limited. It assumes that the measure of reality is its physical nature, that only the material equals reality. A major presupposition.
Now some bonehead wrote above that 'global climate change' is one of two things that will 'end our way of life'. Talk about a convenient religion, but i guess every religion, including science has to have its apocalypse. What a joke. -
The BOURNE movies are a franchise: you could replace Damon with Tom Arnold and those chestnuts would still make money. Not to deny his success, but Damon is handicapped with a string of boxoffice losers (THE GOOD SHEPHERD, BROTHERS GRIMM, STUCK ON YOU, et al). His casting in another anti-Iraq potboiler is pretty couageous but definitely risky. And, remember, LIONS FOR LAMBS featured an all-star cast (including a declining Tom "I'm not gay" Cruise); but it dropped dead on opening day--and I heard the DVD sales are pretty lame.
-
Sam- I agree that he doesn’t know what he’s writing. He is, being kind, a useful idiot. Look at that last post- it is inherently contradictory but what his argument basically boils down to is that the army should be given a free hand like some attack dog to go and do whatever necessary to win. The fact that this doesn’t work, (see Russia in Afghanistan) is not the point. The reason I think he is a vile human being is that if he were at all sentient then he would realise that his proposed course of action is deplorable, barbaric and not to be countenanced.
Hysterically, he also includes the plaintive mewl “According to the Constitution, I have a right to express my views, same as anyone on this post” whilst advocating that the media (and indirectly us) should just shut the fuck up and let the troops get on with doing whatever they want.
Hyprkc- The reason I resorted to name calling so early on is that I find your mindless doublethought vile, odious and deeply offensive. Plus I am lazy. I will however, dissect your last post point by point:
1) “Clearly my point in using Carpet Bombing as an example was missed. I never proposed carpet bombing Iraq or Afghanistan. I was simply illustrating what can be accomplished by the military when civilians and the media do not interfere with the job of the military,” erm, no. You clearly drew the parallel as something that could be achieved by the military with a free hand. Not only is this inaccurate, but it displays absolutely no knowledge of history- even the erroneous example you give shows that. Mass bombings do not equal victory.
2) “which is to achieve victory over an enemy and protect the interest of the people it servers (at least in the United States of America).” How on earth do you think this war is in your interests. Have you not read the paper recently? Just wow.
3) “I think the media and many civilians criticize the U.S. military far too much, to the point that it renders them unable to carry out their duties as effectively as they could otherwise.”- no, examination and criticism is essential for the effective operation of the democracy you hold sacrosanct. You forget that the military is the martial wing of democracy- democracy is not the political wing of the army. The military represents you, and therefore it should be answerable to the standards it is supposed to be supporting. However, you complain when we attempt to silence your ill informed idiocy and yet you would like us to keep shtum regarding whatever horrors we can see. This is base hypocrisy and a thoroughly loathsome viewpoint
4) “The enemy we face now does not share the common beliefs and values that this country was founded on or continues to thrive upon. They threaten our very existence and the American way of life.” Complete rubbish. Where did you get this hysterical nonsense from- have you not seen Team America “There’s someone who wants to kill you. They’re Terrorists and they hate you”.
5) “What American citizen wouldn't want to defeat them as quickly and effectively as possible. That seems logical. It is a shame the civilians are too often killed in war, but again, that is the nature of war. I'll ask again, would you rather see your family killed or that of your enemy? I think its a fair question. Would you rather maintain your way of life, or have a foreign aggressor or religion force its way upon you?” Empty party rhetoric and not worth a comment. But I will anyway- basically, you advocate a quick end to the war, this is obviously attractive, but often the end does not justify the means. Furthermore, your repeated usage of the scare card (which is overrated anyway) because you think it is your trump is fallacious simply because you are trying to overegg the pudding with a fat layer of emotion. This strangles discourse, and is frankly unanswerable. Stop doing it. Furthermore, as you have pointed out we live in western democracies, and one of the joys of living in a democracy is that we DON’T give the military free rein to commit atrocities and we DON’T curtail free speech. And yet these are things you are advocating. I’m glad we don’t live in what you believe to be an acceptable country, but I would question why you wish we did.
6) “Lost Jarv, I mentioned the Syrians and Iranians in my previous post, because they have alot to due with the war in Irag. The supply weapons to insurgents that are in turn used on American and Coalition forces.” Hmm, evidence? But more despicably, you propose enlarging the war on the basis of heresay and bullshit. Syria and Iran? Marvellous, why not just go for the whole fucking Arab World. You do not know what you are saying.
7) “Switching gears, I understand many of you disagree with my post. That is fine, and understandable. What's with the name calling and personal attacks though? How does that advance your arguments? I assure you that if you think it hurts my feelings, you are wrong.” THIS IS TALKBAAAAACK- insult and irrational rage is the lifeblood of the forum.
8) “According to the Constitution, I have a right to express my views, same as anyone on this post” Don’t hide behind the constitution when you are advocating behaviour that is highly unconstitutional. Have the stomach to go all the way with your suggestion
9) “That is what our soldiers are fighting to protect. Freedom.” No it isn’t. Don’t be fooled
-
Sorry about the length of that.
-
...too much like them darned kids these days, I must say that Jarv's 8-point post amounts to this:
Hyprkc = pwnd -
...not to diminish the massive amounts of pwnage delivered upon Hyprkc's pointy dome by the rest of you fine folks, it's just that I don't have the time to go through the TB and list you all.
Good work!
-
stoneage world in the Centre of the Earth, When the Grand Canyon Opens I'm gonna bag me a DINOSAUR. Yee-haw motherfuckers.
-
but Faith and ID are based on a much, much bigger assumption. Science deals with what is observable, faith and ID start from the assumption that there is a metaphysical universe that for some reason has a guiding interest in the universe. Regarding the material observation, just because we can't see it doesn't mean that someday we won't be able to- and it will be part of the material universe you keep writing about. However, this is a far smaller and more reasonable assumption than that of a benign designer. Neither Tolkien or Lewis were scientists, so their opinion on this subject is irrelevant- if ID is to be considered science. If it is philosophy (which is probably what it should be) then that is another matter.
-
...you simply cannot go on living unless you have seen The Last Dinosaur from 1977. A big game hunter called Maston Thrust (I kid you not) takes a team and drills underground until they reach a tropical, prehistoric world where they hunt.... dinosaurs!
It's superbly awful and not to be missed.
Here's a taste:
http://tinyurl.com/3kuuxt -
http://tinyurl.com/4rb5bm
-
It is truly awesome. A group of morons hunting the chewitt monster
-
Prehistoric flying creatures and...
...Coolio!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452668/ -
How can something that IMDB describes as: "A dormant volcano deep with the Turkish forest holds within it a deadly secret. Perfectly preserved, a nest of pterodactyl eggs are ready to hatch... " Not be wonderful. Now if they can just work a Leprechaun in there....
-
I realize you're just laying down the bait and thats fine... but after al lthese years, isn't about time you grew the fuck up a little? seriosuly dude, I don't know what your issue is with me, except for the fact that I laughed at homewreckers digs on you. Am I really the bad guy for enjoying the tennis match you two had? Are you really that fucking insecure that i can't fence sit? Must everyone be a minion to you or forever hold their faces in shit? So what is homewrecker is a jew hating homophobe. Richard pryer was a white hating coke head, but he's still one of my favourite comedians when was the last time you made anyone laugh? I mean intentionally.
-
Apart from you being a heinous moral relativist? Just read your initial post again. You're a fucking idiot, that's what my issue is. Sure, it's your right to be a fucking idiot, but don't cry like a little bitch if I call you on it.
-
I saw it at SXSW. Minimal editorialization. Not a lot of spin either way, from what I could tell.
-
You have a point, as I thought The Good Shepard had great potential but was way too boring and not engaging at all. I love DeNiro, but directing is not his forte.
Greengrass is a different story which is why I think he could pull off a great movie with this one. We shall see. -
Who's winning? Bwa ha ha ha!
-
Paz.... this is aintitcool talkback, not the united nations. get a fucking grip
-
The good guys already won. This is just the afterparty.
-
You said it BSB, not engaging it all, never pulled you into the story. Whereas I thought Breach did. I really like me my Chris Cooper though.
-
and I've no interest at all in Lions for Lambs or Redacted. The whole thing bores me really.
-
You won't regret adding it to your queue. It took me a while to get through the whole thing but it is hands down the best thing ever put to film about the U.S. involvement in WW2. There were times I wanted to cry out of tremendous respect for what that generation did in four short years.
With regards to the above discussion on intelligent design, I think it's safe to say ID lost all credibility when Kirk Cameron and Ben Stein decided to tackle the issue.
Kirk Cameron, that would be little Mike Seaver from Growing Pains, decided that being born once wasn't enough so he did the impossible and was born again. And he and this other mental midget started a money printing business called The Way of the Master. Their explanation for ID was based solely on a banana. I'll give you a moment to read that sentence again. They claimed that a banana was 100% proof of ID because of the way a banana was shaped. The "handle" on top allowed people to conveniently peel the layers back. I guess these two skidmarks haven't watched the animal world in action because primates actually eat bananas by peeling them open from the bottom and in fact, that is the more convenient way to do it.
And then there's Ben Stein and his movie Expelled. I guess this is what we can expect from people who were in Nixon's administration. Stein tries to link Darwinism to the Holocaust and the rally he shows in the film at a college campus doesn't even use real students. It's a bunch of paid extras. -
I blew coffee out of my nose when I read that: "They claimed that a banana was 100% proof of ID because of the way a banana was shaped"
-
antonius, please. Its not the dark ages anymore:trolls do not live under bridges, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, there is no tooth fairy AND RELIGION/ GOD IS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE TOO DUMB TO ACCEPT THAT THE UNIVERSE SO BIG AND COMPLICATED WE WILL NEVER FULLY UNDERSTAND IT ALL
-
The path to accepting ID, rather than just accepting that the explanations for unknown phenomena are still undetermined are the essense of objective desire - which is not logical. You brought up Jesus and healing, and presume that a miracle occurred absent of a scientific explanation. A valid, and even more logical explanation is that it was a ruse. The same kind played this very day by some Evangelical ministers. Or do you really believe Benny Hinn can heal the sick and diseased? Proponents of ID would love to just ascribe any unexplained phenomena to the work of God, but the more reasonable thing to do is to continue to apply scientific investigation to find answers, not just apply a one-size-fits-all faith-based twisted logic explanation.
And I'm really surprised by your criticism of a TBer's claim that global climate change will/can change our way of life. Food supply, weather patterns, disease are all affected by global climate change. How does that possibly not affect our way of life? If you're looking for ways to bash science to advance ID you're gonna have to do better than that. But the real joke is watching you try. -
what I love about miracles is that they are only ever attached to good things. Surely there must be negative miracles: healthy man walking along the street slips in oil puddle that is in the right place then falls against a railing that is weak in the precise place and then under a bus that was unfortunately running ten minutes late- a series of outlandish co-incidences, but surely a miracle?
-
Apr 24, 2008 8:12:53 AM CDT
HAWAIIAN: I'D LIKE TO PLEASURE CANDACE CAMERON WITH THAT BANANA
by bringingsexyback
I heard that God also meant for cucumbers to be used as dildos and that's why they're shaped the way they are. Sounds intelligent to me!
And yeahI'm really looking forward to The War. -
I agree Chris Cooper was great in Breach. Good true-life spy movie with no silly bells and whistles.
-
and while Chris didn't have a lot to do in The Kingdom, he did kick loads of ass in the gun battle, along with everyone else.
-
There are some seemingly supernatural phenomena that lead me to being more a Deist than Atheist, and some might prefer to call them "miracles", but I'm perfectly happy not having an explanation for them. I'm surely not going to advance the theory that ID is behind it all and put that in a textbook.
-
and it freaked me the hell out. Never touched the thing again. I still can't explain what happened - I had no control over my hands and she sure wasn't leading me. It was a fascinating experience. Maybe Parker Brothers sprinkled fairy dust on those things, I don't know.
-
I put that movie on just to watch the gun battle. It's so awesome! Anyone who hates the slew of anti-war movies needs can watch that one to get some satisfaction.
-
It's true and Flying Spaghetti Monster bless YouTube because they have it. The video is around 9 minutes long and the whole thing is worth watching but the "banana" explanation begins around the 3:20 mark. If complete nutjobs like this aren't a ringing endorsement for atheism I don't know what is. If I didn't know better I'd say we were all being punk'd with this video but sadly they're for real. Their website will make you laugh at first and then cry because you realize our president isn't too far removed from believing in their brand of logic. http://tinyurl.com/65vfl2
-
idiots, all of them.
-
Apr 24, 2008 8:49:45 AM CDT
I GOT SOME REAL MAGIC FOR YOU GUYS (ESPECIALLY ANTONIUS)
by bringingsexyback
Someone told me to try this and it totally worked. Let's say you have someone who's fucking with your shit. A nasty co-worker, a business competitor, a fellow student who's backstabbing you ... and you want to keep them from interfering with your work.
Write their name on a piece of paper, and put it at the bottom of a container. Fill the container with water, cover it, and put it in the freezer. You are now effectively freezing out from your life. I've done it, and it works. Maybe it's a miracle, maybe it's magic, or maybe coincidence. I don't know, but it sure worked for me. -
I think things like that are purposely done to dumb down this nation. A poorly educated and ill-informed populace is easier to control and manipulate.
-
I'll give that a try but I always found the most effective way of dealing with an a-hole at work was cold cocking them when they least expected it. And that might explain why I'm at my sixth job in seven years.
-
but I think illegal. HAHA
-
Perhaps it is time you were introduced to the Church of Chang. Here we believe in 2for2true's ways of dealing with shitheels and infidels: stabbing them in the mouth with a #2 pencil. Try it. It'll "lead" you to the path of all this is holy.
-
provided you have appropriate ammunition you can deal with all of life's obstacles.
-
BSB-You got that right. How else to explain the right wing hysteria over gay marriage. There's a mayor or senator from one of the manure pile states and she's a real homophobic C U Next Tuesday. She said a couple weeks ago that homosexuals are a bigger threat to this country than Islamic terrorists. She's calling on her constituents to keep them out of public office. Between "Man + Woman = Marriage" bumper stickers and "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" Sunday morning news rhetoric, it's a wonder the born again neocons can remember to open their garage doors before backing out.
-
The nations aren't "united" at all. In fact, they are only loosely strung together with invisible ectoplasm, a product of the hyperdimensional physics which fuels the soul-star birthing at their cores. And get this: while the spheres in the Universe are expanding, your head is shrinking at an equal rate.
-
this is Aintitcool you know.
-
A very interesting - and long, post. I am not going to bash you for your belief. I think you stated your case well - in your last post. Arrogance exists on both sides of the equation. And neither science nor religion can answer all questions. With regard to science, I remember about ten years ago, some nitwit scientist proclaimed 'All of science has been discovered. There will be no new science'. His point was that physics explains it all, and we just need to understand what it is we are seeing. Well he was wrong. Science is constantly evolving, and new science constantly emerges. Scientific theory constantly is adjusted as new information, and new enlightenment is obtained. As the 'certainty' of what we know now, is replaced by the 'certainty' of what we will learn in the future. It is sheer arrogance to assume that we will discover or have discovered all that is to be discovered. Faith, religious faith - true faith, can not be shaken by what is unknown or what science can and will discover. That is why it is called faith. But what starts the fights is: inflexibility. On both sides. For those who denigrate faith, I ask a simple question: What harm comes from believing in a supreme being? Countless billions beieve in a deity of some sort. A belief in deity does not preclude a belief in science. I am a beleiver in God, but also a believer in science. For those of faith I ask: when presented with incontrovertible evidence - such as the age of the earth, and the fossil record, why can you not accept that the Bible and genesis is not the beginning? That does not mean a supreme being did not influence the creation, it just may mean we have no idea how and why the being did so.
One last thing. Human minds are are sometimes slow to accept the truly grand design of the universe. In both a scientific and metaphysical manner. There are Billions of galaxies out there. With untold billions of stars within them. There are discoveries and mysteries that we can not even guess at - because we do not even know the questions to ask. What if the universe - all 14 billion years of it, is just one in a long line of universes? What if the supreme being - who has a time reference beyond any mere human calculation, set in motion events beyond our understanding? Look for common ground, argue your points as best as you can reason, but do not attack a belief in religious faith or science simply because it challenges your own closely held beliefs.
End of sermon. -
As Ford Fairlane would say, "Too many assholes, too few #2 pencils."
-
I saw that movie when i was a kid! Loved it!. Also, I must highly recommend the late great Doug McClure and his two picture epic of dinosaurs and earthen cores. At the Earths Core, and People that time Forgot.
-
I've got those on DVD! I also have The Land That Time Forgot and Warlords of Atlantis. Doug McClure was the shit.
-
I'm trying to retain a modicum of civility. Although my ultimate plan is to slip in certain words into my TBs over time so that eventually my rants are nothing but a string of profanities.
-
Just to clarify, I'm not bashing anyone for their beliefs. I personally don't think Jesus healed the sick, Moses parted the sea, or Mohammed is the one true messenger of God but that's fine if others want to believe that. I'm just seriously opposed to proselytizing and the imposition of those beliefs upon others. And I despise organized religion, the opiate of the masses. I respected Martin Luther, his belief of man's direct relationship with God and his break from the soul-controlling Catholic Church but he'd be pretty saddened to see how certain Protestant denominations have become worse than what he fought against. And I despise the religious fanatics who use religion (and there's no denying there are fanatics who use ID) to control and manipulate people, even so far as to make them harm themselves and others. All this just really spoils the spiritual nature of religion, at least for me.
-
A childhood memory of a large boulder being flung on top - and bouncing off (like rubber), the head a T-Rex is warming me!
-
We can but try...
-
Which movie had that boulder bouncing off the head of the t-rex? I remember that, but I have not seen whichever movie that was in such a long time.DocP, were those movies part of a bundle?
-
I have zero problem with people who are against organized religion. A belief in deity is not the sole provence of any one religion. And just because you are a believer, it does not make you a good or righteous person. The path to hell...I even give atheists their due, as long as they respect the beliefs of others. By that I mean, there is no need to denigrate someone beliefs because they are not yours. Doing so, is usually a sign of someone who is trying to bolster their own shaky belief or non-belief, at the expense of others. Like i said earlier, true faith - in whatever it is you beleive in, can not be shaken by someone else's belief.
-
That would be The Last Dinosaur. A dozen or so posts above, I actually posted a link to the very scene on youtube.
http://tinyurl.com/3kuuxt
-
Yeah, Land and People were one, and At The Earth's Core and Warlords was the other one. Great collections.
-
I still disagree but this:"They would have never turned over Bin Laden to anyone. Think about that. Your country, your poor country, is housing the mastermind behind the worst civilian attack by a foreign - or homegrown for that matter, terrorist on U.S. soil. The same United States that is the single greatest military power of all time. The same United States that has said, unequivocably, we will destroy you unless you hand over Bin Laden. The same United States that has the backing of much of the world in asking for the terrorist to be turned over to them. And what do you do? What Illogical thing do you do? No. I am not illogical. The U.S. was not illogical. The world was not iilogical. The Taliban, and any who try and defend their actions regarding Bin Laden - that who is illogical."^ you got me on. It is illogical. But that's their religion. And they ardently believe in it. They'd rather get dragged into a 50-year war than go to Hell for disobeying Allah.I guess what I mean to say by our side acting illogical is that we acted stupid, because we should have known there was no way in hell we were ever going to catch Bin Laden unless he was handed over to us. And btw, they WOULD have handed him over. The same logic that tells them to not hand him over to the USA at all costs would have told them to hand him over to an Islamic court, particularly when such a court in Saudi-Arabia for instance, would be far stricter (in doctrine) than even any Taliban court would be (because the Taliban are Sunnis and the Saudis, like Bin Laden, are Wahabi/Salafi). That would have saved their asses and they wouldn't have had to worry about violating "Allah's Law" and all that (which as we've just shown is something they genuinely care about, otherwise why throw away their country over someone who wasn't really benefitting them any).
-
Those should be on Sci-Fi, not their crappily made ones that they put out.
-
If you don't mind broaching the subject, what are your thoughts about Afghanistan's strategic importance as a large producer of natural gas as well as a transit country for oil from the Caspian Sea, in connection with the invasion? Was the invasion inevitable, in order to control the gas and oil production? I find it deeply suspect that Hamid Karzai, a Unocal consultant (Unocal had agreements with the Taliban, pre-2001, for gas production) was installed as President. Is the Bin Laden issue ultimately moot given the Administration's true motives for invading?
-
he should be here now to post another useful idiot rant. I wouldn't bother if I was him.
-
From what I understand, Wahabism and or Salafism - which are almost interchangeable, but one term is considered derogatory , are conservative offshoots of Sunni. They are all still Sunni.
The more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that no matter what the Taliban did, the United States would have gone into Afghanistan. To destroy the Al Qaida bases at the very least. However, the Taliban itself, would have probably been left untouched - unless it decided to fight with Al Qaida. I may be wrong about this, but I do not think we would want a base of operations to remain intact. It would have been an interesting dance on the Talibans part. Invite in the 'infidel' or suffer invasion. I suspect they would have fought anyway, and I further suspect the Taliban knew that it would not get away with simply handing over Bin Laden, - so they chose to fight it out.
And as for strictness of doctrine, I disagree, the Taliban were known to have the strictest Sharia law in all of Islam. So, if they had intended justice, swift justice, they would have done it themselves. -
I have settled on the double feature of War Gods of the Deep/At the Earth's Core. I believe I have not seen either of them, so I can only imagine the joy I shall experience as I watch the cheesiness unfold before my eyes.I've also settled on the double feature of Them!/Beast from 20,000 fathoms. They were selling just the Beast as a stand alone, but for the same price I get Them! A no-brainer. And I just had to get the original War of the Worlds. I'm giddy like a little school child now.
-
Honestly, all my opinions are stolen from Tom Clancy, random people off the street in Pakistan, mainstream news sites like the BBC/CNN/etc., and Wikipedia.It's scary how common sense is so easily accessible but still sorely lacking in some corners.The thing regarding SWAT teams is what I don't get. I know that we need to re-build the Iraqi Army, and that their Army is the best bet against Shi'ite militias, but the Iraqi Army is mismatched against "Al-Qaeda In Iraq" (which, btw, illustrates the difference between Salafis/Wahabis and Sunnis... because the Reawakening Councils we've heard so much about are all Sunnis whereas "Al-Qaeda In Iraq" is Salafi/Wahabi). The only thing that would have success against something like that is pretty much a SWAT team.From the Wiki page on it:"SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) is an elite unit in many American police departments, which is trained to perform exceptionally dangerous, high-risk, counter-terrorism operations that fall outside of the abilities of patrol officers. These can include serving high-risk arrest warrants, performing hostage rescue and/or armed intervention, preventing terrorist attacks and counter-terrorism, and engaging heavily-armed criminals. SWAT teams are equipped with specialized firearms including assault rifles, submachine guns, shotguns, carbines, riot control agents, stun grenades, and high-powered rifles for marksmen (snipers). They often have specialized equipment including heavy body armor, entry tools, armored vehicles, and night vision optics."On the bottom of the page it lists equivalent departments in police forces around the world. There are only two in the Middle East. Israel and Egypt. Egypt, btw, which is home to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy of ALL 20th century Islamic terrorism. Egypt owned them so bad, they're now a mainstream political party that might eventually wrest control of the country through democratic elections (they've modernized, renounced terrorism, and all that stuff... which was always just based off interpretations of their founder's work, Sayyid Qutb, wiki him too).Ayman Zawahiri came from Egypt and was inspired by the same fanatical interpretations that the Muslim Brotherhood, still considered a terrorist organization by many, ascribed to.Yet here Egypt is, for the most part, safe and sound as can be. In no danger of becoming an Afghanistan, an Iraq, an Iran, or even a Pakistan. Why? Because whenever they've had to deal with shit, their security forces (although misused and abused by those in power for sure, and used as a sort of secret police sometimse, definitely) were able to deal with shit.Pakistan doesn't have such a thing, but they just use their Army commandos in civilian ops and get messy results (see: Lal Masjid fiasco where they slaughtered a Mosque full of civilians and considered it a success, yet if American SWAT were put in charge of the operation there wouldn't have been such an outcome). What the Pakistanis do is just take military casualties instead of going too apeshit on their own people (a little bit is okay, apaprently). They lost some high-ranking officers on a mission that even a bunch of prepubescent CounterStrike players with guns could have won, albeit by killing all the civilians.It sounds almost ridiculous to imply that the answer to all our problems is SWAT of all things (LL Cool J and Samuel Jackson > Stallone as Rambo? Cue SWAT theme music), but it should at least be like an Obama talking point or something. Or the generals there, Petraeus for one, should be talking about how we plan on upgrading the Iraqi police to take on Al-Qaeda while we simultaneously upgrade the Iraqi army to take on Shi'ite militias. We CANNOT do this one thing at a time, there needs to be progress ACROSS the board to foster the environment for small moments of peace to coalesce that hopefully get longer every interval (spaced around the inevitable failure of letting a terrorist attack through every now and then).Also, on that list from the SWAT wiki article, there are other Muslim countries, like Indonesia and the Phillipines, who are also suffering from the same Islamic fundamentalist/terrorist issues but we never hear about them having any real problems in the news...Instead, we get that "Man, fuck SWAT" attitude from Eddie Murphy in BHC.
-
You're getting your research from the Internet... not that that's a bad thing entirely, you need a base to start off from and that's really impressive that you would even bother.Sunni Islam is split into four schools of thought, based off four major Sunni Imams. These schools are Hanafi (practiced in Central Asia, Turkey, South Asia, Southeast Asia, including Afghanistan/Pakistan), Maliki (Africa), Shafi'i (parts of the Arab world and Southeast Asia), and Hanbali (the most parochial one, in a few Arab countries). All these schools consider the other to be valid interpretations of law. Not only are they schools of law that agree with each other as valid interpretations of Allah's Law as derived from the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Mohammad (which is called the "Sunnah", thus the name "Sunnis"), but they also share creed or doctrine.Creed/doctrine is kind of like theology... What is God? What is the nature of God? What is the nature of Free Will? etc. etc. These four Sunni schools of law follow two Sunni schools of creed, called Ashari and Maturidi, named after the Imams who founded those. These are actually the most interesting for non-Muslims because this is all that classical philosophy stuff you hear about in textbooks. Most of the methodology used by Asharis for instance, is essentially a predecessor of what we call sociology today. The guy himself (Ashari) draws comparisons to Immanuel Kant, despite coming some centuries before him.So anyway, one of the questions which these schools of creed deal with is the nature of God. When the Quran talks about "the hand of God" or whatever, does it literally mean God has a hand? Or does it mean something purely metaphorically? This seems obvious to us to understand, and it really is for them too, but to get that understanding down onto paper as a codified logical process is difficult and yet absolutely necessary because the Ashari/Maturidi schools of creed arose in response to new influences on the Islamic religion during its expansive age from the other religions it would come into contact with. They needed to preserve their original religion but not dogmatically, through superior, sound logic, because only that could stand the test of time (as opposed to what happened to Christianity... where the religion was completely subverted in order to allow progress). Throughout this age, in fact, the Islamic religion helped drive civilizational progress. What ironically happened later is that some people believe the Asharis/Maturidis despite coming to conclusions that are still logically sound and philosophically undefeated, they kind of sent Islamic civilization into a stun phase, and a few major Islamic philosphers later, that was exactly when Western civilization (no longer just 'Christian civilization) overtook Islamic civilization in terms of 'worldly progress'. Now that's not a question I, or even many major Islamic scholars, historians, academics of all fields can answer. Everyone has their theories. The closest relationship I can see is that the Ottoman Empire took advantage of these new doctrinal trends (which fostered spiritual progress in that Sufism took off within Islam, this is where Rumi became popular) in order to keep their population on a leash. I think the problem was politics, not philosophy or theology.Anyway, Salafis (I'll stop referring to Wahabis here, though they are slightly different in that they follow one specific line of "scholars", and are named after one such person), are a new, modern movement which tires of these four schools. They say Muslims should go straight to the original Hadith (sayings/traditions of Mohammad) to get the religion literally. Whereas the four schools of thought have commentaries, dissertations, and scholarly lineages going back to within the first generation after Mohammad, the Salafis (named after the "Salaf", a term for the original Muslims, because they feel they best represent them somehow) don't have any of that. They just go read a Hadith, and follow it literally or whatever meaning they can come up with. They do the same for Quranic verses. What this amounts to is taking everything way out of context. This is how Bin Laden (a Salafi) can quote the Quranic verse to "slay them wherever you find them" and say, idiotically, that means to kill all Westerners. None of the poor students of his get up and ask, "Why should we accept YOUR definition of 'them'?". What that verse obviously means is, taking into account the rest of the Quran, and where it allows war, when you DO fight war, you "slay them whereever you find them", and even what "them" means is laid out clearly by similar means (i.e, combatants vs. non-combatants). You see how a sane, comprehensive, war policy is derived from a very short original work (the Quran) that only touches on the issue. Most of this is done through the example of how Mohammad and his predecessors managed things. And the scholars of the four Sunni schools of law are within that tradition, carefully documenting and reasoning everything.So the Sunnis have the answer to all of Osama's woes. What to do when Islamic civilization has fallen? GET BACK UP. Fix yourselves, get the will of the people involved, get a proper government going that isn't just Islamic but actually represents the people (Sunnis don't believe in enforcing Shariah on a population that doesn't want it, because that can only mean everything goes wrong), institute any foreign policy changes as are relevant to internal progress, etc. All common sense to anyone who's studied even a modicum of political science in High School or Undergrad, but way too complex for someone as impatient as Osama.Al-Qaeda aside, there are Salafis who are peaceful, because obviously, there's a spectrum. There are those Salafis who actually pick and borrow from the various schools as they see fit, so are very close to the Sunni idea of law. By the way, I should mention here, Salafis don't actually have a system of Shariah. This is why the Saudis are more strict than the Taliban ever could be. The Taliban's Shariah is straight from classical Hanafi works, any problems there are due to the fact you have poor, sometimes illiterate people trying to enforce and interpret/apply them. The Saudis on the other hand, you can see where "their" Shariah led them, banning bicycles earlier in the 20th century, and all sorts of craziness. In fact, nowadays, Salafism and Wahabism are on the decline. There's growing awareness within the Muslim community of what really is their "old" Islam that they hold allegience to, and what is the Islam of these new people that nobody likes. So Salafis have started to become closer to Sunnis, and nowadays Salafis even say that when they mean Shariah, they mean for instance, the Sunni Hanafi Shariah, or the Sunni Maliki Shariah. Most Salafis will even perpetrate as Sunnis, but as those of the Hanbali school. Because the Hanbali school is the most parochial and least codified of the four schools. A lot of the Saudis pretend that they're Hanbalis too. Even today, Al-Qaeda, even OSAMA from rumors in Pakistan, are trying to pass themselves off as Hanbalis in order to attract more mainstream Sunni attention (a response to the Iraq situation where Sunnis turned on Salafis/Wahabis). So you can see how some Salafis are often counted as Sunni, but others just stray so far out of bounds. I mentioned this in a post earlier.Now. What really distinguishes between sects of Muslims is Creed/Doctrine/Theology, NOT Law. This is the answer to all of the above. What makes a Sunni is not really following one of the four schools of law, but following one of those two schools of creed (Ashari and Maturidi). What does this really mean? Well, if you're a person who has the creed of Asharis/Maturidis (there is a book by an American Islamic scholar, Hamza Yusuf, called "The Creed of Imam Tahawi", it is a translation of a classical Islamic work, it's gotten huge attention within the academic community because it's the best to date in English. It's a short, concise, point by point account of what actually is in the creed of Sunnis), then you are not the same Muslim as someone who follows another creed. By Islamic standards, your prayers behind an Imam of a different school of creed are invalidated. You see how big this becomes? This isn't some new thing either, this is in the very nature of how Islam works. You have Muslims today, obviously, who are like "that's all nonsense, Muslim's Muslim, we'll pray together", but Mohammad, the original Muslims, all the original scholars (there are an uncountable number of published works of Islamic scholarship from the last millenium and a half that Sunni and Shi'ite scholars specialize in, that Salafis all ignore), followed this logic. If someone's idea of the nature of God is different than you, then your prayers aren't really to the same entity. It's up to God to judge what's in people's hearts, but for your own sake, worry about making your prayers count. Therefore, you will never find a knowledgeable Sunni (of traditional/classical scholarship, not a new-age-feel-good scholar which is basically just a Westerner or someone else encapsulating Islam... not that that's a bad thing, but that's just not going to answer our questions about the other billion Muslims now is it?) who will pray behind a Salafi. In literal terms, Sunnis, though being very delicate about it, don't even consider Salafis to be Muslims (just as how technically, Shi'ites and Sunnis are not Muslims to one another except maybe in a political sense to avoid all out war).I should mention that Salafis have this sort of phantom third school of creed, called Athari (not Ashari), but if you look it up on Wikipedia, it will say that it's the third school (when it's not), and that it has essentially... nothing to its name. There are no Athari philosophers like the Ashari/Maturidi ones which are famous and studied still in all academic circles related to Islam.Now... the Sunnis of South Asia, the Deobandis, to which the Taliban belong, are believe it or not, VERY, VERY, CRITICAL of Salafis. They are the strictest anti-Salafis one can find. And yet somehow the Taliban had a love-affair with Al-Qaeda? Names to throw out there, Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the Deobandi-affiliated cleric whom Jinnah had raise Pakistan's flag (and read his own funeral prayer), Mufti Mahmud (the father of current Pakistani politician, Maulana Fazalur Rahman), this guy signed the first fatwa declaring Jihad on the Soviet Union for their invasion of Afghanistan. He is a Pashtun, he is revered by the Taliban. He agreed with all of this and was critical of Salafis to this extent. He was also the Pakistani politican who not only defeated Zulfiqar Bhutto (the socialist) in elections, the only one who defeated that guy back then, he also rejuvenated the Islamic political party of Pakistan (now known as the JUI-F, led by his son). This guy was mainstream traditional Islamic scholarship at its best. So wherever you look, you'll find this to be the case. You can look up the Deobandi article on Wikipedia provided it hasn't been defaced by random other groups. They're essentially a "back to basics" movement within Hanafi Sunni Islam. As mainstream as they can get. Most Muslims in the West, and their Imams, are Deobandi affiliated in terms of religion (though obviously so few are practicing).So why did the Taliban ally with Al-Qaeda? First of all, Osama pretends to be a Hanbali Sunni, follower of this 'Athari' creed. The Taliban, Mullah Omar, whoever, don't question other Muslims, particularly those who are funneling millions of dollars into their country while they've been blacklisted by the West, and those who helped them fight off the Russians. Osama worked his ass off for that marriage. Yet despite that, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remain distinctive organizations. Mullah Omar's last interview reinforced this. The Taliban are still just a Pashtun movement focused on Afghanistan, and their Al-Qaeda guests have delusions of grandeur and want to annihilate the West. Al-Qaeda had no part in running Afghanistan with the Taliban, it was an alliance, not a merger. The closest field on which they 'merge' is the battlefield, and even then, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, from everything we see here in Pakistan (we get many more news reports of the fighting going on around the Pakistani-Afghan border between NATO and insurgents) indicates, don't fight together. The Taliban employ classical military tactics. Al-Qaeda go for terrorist attacks. They merge once again, militarily, when the Taliban decided to use that tactic as their answer to NATO airpower like I mentioned above.Now, the Saudis aren't just Salafis, they are Wahabis... Wahabis rely less on Salafist logic and more on a dogmatic adherence to what the Arabs after World War 1 derived from Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahab. Who, by the way, wasn't a Salafi-type himself. His works/writings were misappropriated. He was a Sunni.Another point of distinguishment between Sunnis and Salafis is Sufism. Sufism is "Islamic Spirituality" and is very much a part of Sunni Islam, all four schools of law, and the two schools of creed. Salafis and Wahabis view Sufism and spirituality as heretical. They aren't big fans of Rumi. Yet the Deobandi Afghan clerics, some of whom still fight with the Taliban, will always refer to Rumi, the same guy who is the bestselling poet in the West, as "Maulana Rumi Rahamtullah Alayhi" meaning, "Cleric Rumi, May Allah Have Mercy on him", a very reverent title of respect. They refer to him in all their sermons which are often very laced with poetical assertions of love for God and all that stuff. You don't find any of that within Salafi Islam. It's ugly, to say the least. It's what happens when people devoid of any sort of spirituality, which is or SHOULD BE the basis of religion in my opinion, because it keeps it straight, try to get religion. Muslims view Salafis like most modern athiests or agnostics view organized religion, although Salafism isn't organized. The irony is that Salafism is borne out of Western philosophical principles. They believe everyone can derive religion for themselves as they see fit. They don't realize this means that all those people with emotional angst for whatever reason (the sad state of affairs in the Muslim world perhaps), like Osama, will just start interpreting things within this context, clouded by emotion. In Islam, unlike Christianity, classic/traditional scholarship means logic and even rational thought. Islam's dark ages weren't 1000 years ago, they're now. For the most part, the way Western civilization works these days is that we have an information overload. And that information is knowledge. In Islamic civilization, knowledge is sacred and must be true. Information is something else. This is why someone who reads the verse "slay them wherever you find them" and his brain can only think of those people whom he is emotionally at odds with as the definition of "them", couldn't have gotten support to do anything even 200 years ago within the Islamic community. It's a side-effect of Westernizing/Modernizing/whatever the Muslim world. Muslims will tell you that Al-Qaeda (and all such movements inspired by the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood, read up on them, Sayyid Qutb, like Osama, was an expert in secular, Western knowledge, had no qualifications in classical Islamic scholarship) is a curse that "you have put on us".If Tom Clancy should run for President, he should get a sociologist to be his running mate. The world is a very complex place. The answer isn't some simple trick to divide through by some lowest common denominator, like American foreign policy is today. We've spent a century working tirelessly in the fields of Psychology, Sociology, History, Political Science, Philosophy, etc. For what purpose? THIS is why we did that. To use them NOW to help us interact in the world with other people. Not to fill random textbooks. And you wanna know something? You know damn well the founding fathers of America, and probably the majority of past Presidents, would be with me on that.Sorry, I didn't have time to check through this for errors.
-
Apr 24, 2008 11:26:16 AM CDT
Why fight over politics when we should UNITE AGAINST HANCOCK!
by puddleglum
More Will Smith "I'm jus' gonna act the same way I always do" bullshit.
-
So intriguing. I need a chart to fully comprehend what you described but really, that's some utterly fascinating information. You should get a Cabinet position in the next Adminstration. I sincerely mean that.
-
btw, yes. Salafis believe Allah is a real physical entity with hands, feet, eyes, etc. and He sits on some throne somwhere. Sunnis would have a heart attack just reading a sentence like that.Also, a lot of what we know about the Taliban was just plain bad publicity. They were strict as hell, but a lot of that is due to simply being uneducated (the wars killed off most of the most knowledgeable Sunnis in their ranks), and having no means to actually DO anything.I've been to the places in Pakistan which are considered "Taliban country", I know people who are Sunni scholars, who sympathize with the Taliban (yet always maintain their seperate political affiliation as Pakistanis, not Afghanis or Taliban), and I'm telling you. The Taliban were really not a bunch of boogeymen. They were definitely scary. But scary in the sense that I'd piss my pants if I had to walk around these areas without a guide because it's just scary looking Pashtun men with Kalashnikovs wandering around. You take one wrong look at someone's woman (despite her being in a burqah) and you're dead. That's some scary shit. (Though they're harsh simply because they expect you to know you just don't do that there, and if you do cross their customs, it must be willingly, and that's like some sort of challenge to them or something). I don't think these people would've needed Rambo's help in reality. But that's their culture, not their religion.Of course, if you go with a guide, or are properly introduced, get off on the right foot, these same areas of "Taliban country" are the most hospitable parts of Pakistan, and probably the world. Most Western journalists whose works I've read who've been here, literally fall in love with the place. Not just due to the amazing scenery (Kashmir-like... remember the Led Zeppelin song? It looks like paradise, literally), but because of how incomprehensibly NICE these people are.Now when you cross the border into Afghanistan, you enter a war-torn country where millions died, leaving a disproportionate populace left to run things, and simmering leftovers of civil war emotions.Here's an interesting article about the Taliban I was forwarded a while back:http://tinyurl.com/59pyog I don't know if I buy all that. All I know is, the Taliban are pretty damn mainstream. Most of Afghanistan still likes them. Most of Pakistan (150 million people) sympathizes with them, because of the common religious and ethnic ground. Though Pakistanis, unlike Afghans (which you can attribute to their different recent histories), don't want a religious society, they still have a soft spot for Islam and respect those who do.In other news, today, the Pakistani Taliban announced a ceasefire. See BBC.There are two militants of importance in Pakistan. Baitullah Mehsud, a smart and shrewd leader of a local Waziri tribe (the Mehsud tribe), who has been known to fight in Afghanistan in the past, under the command of the Afghan Taliban there. If you piece together all the articles on him from Western journalists from mainstream news organizations, you get a picture of a guy who's passionate about his religion and more importantly, about his tribal ties and loyalties to the Afghanis. You also get a picture of a dangerous man who is not easy to cross.On the other hand you have "Maulana Fazlullah", he's pretty much a Taliban-wannabe. He doesn't fight in Afghanistan, he just pretends like he's badass enough to. He prefers to just pick on locals. He's the son-in-law of Sufi Mohammad, an old Pakistani guy (referred to in BBC's article today) who had his own tribal/militant organization. Sufi Mohammad got arrested for fighting in Afghanistan against NATO. While he was in jail, his loose cannon of a son-in-law took over, invited random foreign militants (Uzbeks, Arabs, whatever) and started nonsensical campaigns of local fighting against the Pakistani Army in order to institute some phantom Shariah (he took over some land... the Shariah never came).By contrast, Baitullah Mehsud's beef with the Pakistanis is basically "hey, I hate America, let me fight them in Afghanistan. Leave me alone here otherwise I'll fight you too". He has stated (this is all from BBC/CNN, you've all probably read these before) that he's hesitant to fight the Pakistani Army because it's a "national institution" and he sees himself as Pakistani. So far, I don't see any signs of this crazy destroy-the-western-way-of-life-and-death-2-america movement even amongst the most hardcore extremists in the most hardcore extremist corner of the world.Anyway, Baitullah Mehsud is also the one blamed for Bhutto's death by the Americans and Musharraf's government. Whereas everyone in Pakistan here, including Bhutto's family, calls bullshit on that. He himself has said that to attack women goes against all of his ethnic and religious sensibilities. He's not into the whole attacking civilians in Pakistan thing either, that's Maulana Fazlullah.But. They both operate in the same area and are therefore, "allies". Baitullah's the head honcho. Part of the agreement for a ceasefire was to release Maulana Fazlullah's father-in-law, Sufi Mohammad. I'm pretty sure all parties involved, the Afghani Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban (Pakistanis who fight in Afghanistan), and the Pakistani government, were all happy to oblige. They're hoping he beats some sense into that idiot of his and gets his group under control again.What the Pakistanis were initially trying to do was walk a fine line. So some people hate America, and NATO. Fine. Go fight them. It's an actual war there. There are only American military personnel there for you to fight. Go do it in a fair fashion and see who wins. Just don't do it from our country. But the Pakistanis in the tribal regions have issue with that. Though they don't actually stage outright attacks from Pakistani areas, they do retire to Pakistan to rest, meet their families, take care of business, etc. The "fact" that arms are being supplied to the Taliban in Afghanistan through Pakistan (and that they rearm and restage here) is just something we all take on good faith from the CIA. Because they've never shown proof of this, and Pakistanis are acutely aware of this.Pakistan's policy was also to covertly help one branch of the Taliban, the one that actually does most of the fighting, at the expense of the other branch (the leaders in hiding, who are allied with Al-Qaeda). Pakistan sought to drive a wedge between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, hand over Al-Qaeda to the West, then watch the rest of the 'mainstream' Taliban defeat NATO and re-take Afghanistan (in the best interests of Pakistan, strategically speaking). That all fell through when the main Taliban guy who was the alternative to Mullah Omar died (because as the 'sincere' Taliban are won't to do, they don't hide like Mullah Omar or Osama, they're out there fighting for whatever it is they believe in, they don't hide in Pakistan like cowards, if they're gonna get their asses kicked by NATO, so be it). That's the problem with sincerity these days. The people who ascribe to it tend to die off quicker.There's also the fact that these guys wouldn't mutiny against their leader (Mullah Omar). The OTHER problem with sincerity.So now Pakistan's got a democratically elected government that wants peace in the tribal regions. They've made it clear they don't give a rat's ass about America's war in Afghanistan. They're going to try and get that peace, even if it means returning to the status quo of having "Pakistani Taliban" sneaking into Afghanistan to fight NATO during the off-season or whatever. Now the US is in a tough position. If they can get clear evidence of what's going on and show it to the world, they force Pakistan's hand. They'll have to stop them in the tribal regions. Until they do so, they have to respect the democratically elected government of Pakistan and the Pakistani people's wishes.I think the optimal scenario for Pakistan would be to withdraw from the tribal areas but control the border. The Pakistani Taliban cannot admit to fighting in Afghanistan. So then they'll be bound to their peace agreement, but when they try to sneak into Afghanistan, Pakistan catches them and stops them.I also think it was a bad idea to reach this point. What the tribal people wanted earlier was for the PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT to give them Shariah. They said "there is no law and order here, we want shariah. YOU give it to us, it is YOUR responsibility, the Pakistani Constitution says SHARIAH is the law of OUR land". And Musharraf, idiotically, repealed ALL of Zia ul Haq's Shariah laws from the '80s. Instead of cleverly subverting them (they were heavily flawed and were abused... a woman getting stoned for being raped is not what happens in Islamic law but what happens when you mix three lines of Islamic law with a British system of evidence, enforced by random uneducated people in the tribal regions), he took away the only thing that legitimized Pakistan's government as "Muslim" in other people's eyes.But from today's events, it looks like the militants still see Pakistan as more or less a fellow Muslim entity and Pakistan dodged a bullet there.
-
A very insightful post - was this by any chance a part of your thesis or disertation? Regardless, it was genuinely well written and showed a remarkable insight into Islam that I can honestly say I have never experienced before. I work with some Indian Muslim's, and I have spoken to them about various aspects of their religion. which is were I got some inormation regarding Wahabism and salafism. I am always curious, and rarely accept one interpretation at face value. Religions, are created by man, whether they have been given the imprimatur of a deity or not, they are institutions of mortal manufacture. As such, they are subject to mortal failings. No religion is immune to that. One can debate, which have been more susceptible to such failings until the end of time, and still come to no conclusions.
I do thank you for providing me - and others, with such a rich foundation upon which to expand our knowledge of Islam. It is always a pleasure to encounter such opportunities that allow for growth.
We may continue to disagree on some points, but I truly enjoy the process of friendly suasion. -
...if America had millions of Native Americans living in like Oregon or Alaska. Native Americans who stuck to their old culture, but were militarily up to date, and would fight and die to protect the United States at any time, anywhere. Maybe even pull out some magical shit out of their ass, and having that whole inspiring 'mystique'. Not to mention when you go up there for vacation they're nice as hell.That's why Pakistan and Pakistanis value their tribal regions as is. When you've got India on the other side, this is their trump card. India cannot occupy Pakistan. India has to be careful about simply starting wars with Pakistan lest they get millions of angry and heavily-armed tribesmen storming their borders, making way for the significantly armed and sized Pakistani Army (what is it like the 5th or 6th largest army in the world, an Air Force that is similary styled to the USA's and Israel's to check India's which is based on the Russian model, and oh yeah... nuclear weapons). That's an unbeatable combination.The reason it can't be used to actually attack India is of course, mutually assured destruction. India's got a million troops and nukes of their own.If Pakistan loses the tribal regions and Afghanistan as sort of their "backup", then the balance is completely thrown out of whack. For a little while there, Musharraf had Pakistan in a precarious position where India had nothing to lose militarily, and everything to gain from storming Pakistan right now and simply annexing one or two of its provinces. Luckily, Pakistan is in the West's favor at the moment, and India's going through some kind of weird mid-life nihilistic crisis.I do agree with Musharraf's idea of just ending the Kashmir issue as is. Just let India keep what they got, let Pakistan keep (or even give over) what they got. Pakistan doesn't need Kashmir when they have the tribal regions already. Plus Kashmiris are not like Pashtun. They're passive people, of a different strain of Sunni Islam. That's why they don't quite rise up in an insurgency against Indian rule like Pakistanis would prefer. I know Musharraf is still bitter about how his plans in Kargil failed to inspire the masses to rebellion (it was Pakistan's umpteenth try at this).Also I want to apologize if I come off sounding insensitive regarding American troops fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. I realize that the reasons they're there might be bogus, but I don't think that they deserve to die at all. So even if I say that the Taliban who decide to try and fight it out with America ought to do so with the US Army, I mean that in a principled sense. Our soldiers put their lives on the line so we don't have to. They've agreed to do our fighting for us (the civilians).Most of my conclusions about the situation in Iraq (re: that whole SWAT article) was based off experiences of close friends of mine who were stationed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, including a marine, and one who's actually a Pakistani-American.
-
I am afraid we are going to have to disagree once again. Your assertion that 'The Taliban are pretty damn mainstream' flys' smack in the face with what the Taliban actually did, and it was not 'bad publicity, but actual fact. "Public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums. Frivolous activities, like kite-flying, were outlawed. In order to root out "non-Islamic" influence, television, music, and the Internet were banned. Men were required to wear beards, and subjected to beatings if they didn't.
Most shocking to the West was the Taliban's treatment of women. When the Taliban took Kabul, they immediately forbade girls to go to school. Moreover, women were barred from working outside the home, precipitating a crisis in healthcare and education. Women were also prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative—those that did so risked being beaten, even shot, by officers of the "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice." A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off. All this, according to the Taliban, was to safeguard women and their honor."
That is not 'mainstream' to me, and I seriously doubt that educated Afghan women would welcome back the Taliban with open arms.
-
Looking at these lines of religious division or identity from a purely socio-political point of view, it's fascinating. If I'm not mistaken, India also obtained its nuclear weaponry from Israel, which is not the smartest thing to do considering their purpose of deterring and/or use against Pakistan.
-
This TB just got me hungry for a kebob.
-
Ben Stein chose to use the Michael Moore approach to documentary film making. While Moore's stuff is entertaining as hell to lefties like me, I realizes he chop-shops stuff to his own advantage. Penn and Teller do the same thing on Bullsh!t and while I think their show is brilliant, it is also full of inconsistencies. In "Expelled", Ben Stein seriously argues that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution paved the way for the Holocaust. By "seriously," I mean that Ben Stein acts grief-stricken and juxtaposes quotes from evolutionary biologists with archival newsreel clips from Hitler's Reich. That exhibits bottom dwelling behavior and profoundly bad taste. Expelled then trots out some of the people whom it claims have been persecuted by the Darwinist establishment. First among them is Richard Sternberg, former editor of the peer-reviewed "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington," who published an article on intelligent design by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute. Sternberg tells Stein that he subsequently lost his editorship, his old position at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and his original office. Looking a bit smug in his self-martyrdom, Sternberg also reports that a colleague compared him with an "intellectual terrorist." What most viewers of Expelled may not realize, because the film doesn't even hint at it, is that Sternberg's case is not quite what it sounds. Biologists criticized Sternberg's choice to publish the paper not only because it supported ID but also because Sternberg approved it by himself rather than sending it out for independent expert review. He didn't lose his editorship; he published the paper in what was already scheduled to be his last issue as editor. He didn't lose his job at the Smithsonian; his appointment there as an unpaid research associate had a limited term, and when it was over he was given a new one. His office move was scheduled before the paper ever appeared. And once and for all, the ID folks who say that their theory is not necessarily religious in nature are fooling themselves. If there is/was a mad scientist with supernatural powers who designed bananas, conch shells and flagellum because that type of stuff is above nature's head, even given hundreds of millions of years to evolve and perfect, that that being would be a god. And unless you're Greek, Indian and tribal, we all know that Christians believe in one true God. Therefore it would have to be the Christian god who was the designer. Trying to argue that point, as a Christian.s just being dishonest with yourself.
-
Shut le fuck up and let the adults talk you pitiful child-man.
-
Anchorite, have you ever thought that academia isn't fearful or insecure about ID or the church, rather they are just plain pissed off? Look what the religious revolution has given us in the past 30 years. Falwell and his Moral Majority shoehorned their way into politics and were largely responsible for putting Reagan in office. And yes, I'm one of those folks who thinks 8 years of Reagan was a disaster for this country. He was a lot smarter than he let on but his deregulations and Cold War spending sent this country into a downward spiral. Besides, his spend, spend, spend policies turned conservatism on its ear. Then we had the brou-ha-ha over the Bubba blow job. Was Bill a total jerk off for thinking with his dick in the first place? Absolutely. But the witch hunt that followed (spearheaded by bible-thumping neocons) really was a disgrace. Considering that it was only a decade after the Iran-Contra affair and the clusterphuck of the Savings and Loan scandal, Jebus freaky neocons should have had a little more shame and STFU. And of course there's our current Imbecile In Chief, a C+ average student in college and a failure at every single business endeavor he ever tried before being thrust into politics without a shred of credentials solely based on his family name and the support of the religious base. And look where 8 years of his leadership has gotten us. No, I'd have to say it isn't out of fear and insecurity, it's simply a backlash for the heaping mounds of shit the religious right has dumped on this country the past 3 decades.
-
Node: LMAO.
toadkillerdog: You should read the excerpt from Adler's book here:
http://tinyurl.com/59pyog
I dunno what the hell Taliban have to do with Israel or Zionism, but that excerpt, minus the commentary by this 'MZ' character, seems quite fascinating.And as I was implying, most of the things you know about the Taliban, who they executed, for what, when, is likely bull. You haven't seen any evidence for any of these claims, and most of these are fed to the media by the same people who told us Iraq had WMDs. When you actually try to look up records of where these reports come from, you run into the same things this guy did.The people I've met (including women) who've been to Afghanistan during the Taliban rule haven't seen any of those things.That movie, "Road to Guantanamo Bay"? Is useful for another purpose. A glimpse into Taliban-run Afghanistan, right before the invasion. Notice how they're running around in Afghanistan like everything's normal, shopping in Western-style stores (albeit run down) and everything.A few things I know for certain:Kiteflying was outlawed because it was, believe it or not, dangerous. Musharraf outlawed Kite-flying in Pakistan. People were killed by that crap in Lahore. The ban obviously refers to a certain type of celebratory kite-flying, for some ethnic holiday, I don't remember what it's called, but it's not an Islamic thing. Anyway, that got blown out of proportion.I already mentioned how the biggest thing that upset us about the Taliban were that they dared to ban Western culture (TV, music, etc.). If you look at what Afghani culture had before Western music, and TV (which is a different issue because Islam prohibits images of people's faces), then that kind of "music" never really was banned, though it never really made it into mass-produced circulation either. Though the Taliban ascribed to a purified form of Sufism that didn't believe in musical instruments (an actual legitimate injunction in all flavors of Islam), they tolerated the Sufis who did use music by playing instruments and all that during their meditations. Sufi "music" is basically the same as their traditional Pashto music, except the latter's got simplified worldly lyrics (you know, i got drunk, fell in love, bitch left me, etc. etc.) while Sufis use less music, more chanting, with religious lyrics about God. Aside from this, I'm sorry to say, Afghanistan didn't really have much of a thing for pop/rap/rock music until we brought it there. Us bringing it there doesn't make it a superior form of culture either. They definitively banned the sale of music and movie CDs, etc. because these were all Western (specifically American) things invented for distributing their culture. They obviously didn't ban the technologies because they had Afghani and religious stuff on CDs available all over the place in the cities.Even Al-Qaeda PRODUCED CDs from Afghanistan. With VIDEO on them. Violating Taliban laws. Salafis tend to cut corners like that.The Internet wasn't banned... they didn't even HAVE the Internet to ban it. They certainly would've been interested in Chinese-style moderation to filter out 1) pornography 2) anti-islamic stuff like the danish cartoons, the dutch movie, etc. that we have today. The Deobandi madrassahs from which the Taliban graduated ALL HAVE WEBSITES. The biggest one in South Asia, in Karachi Pakistan, has their newest students who know English translating classical works and uploading those, and sermons, online weekly from their computer lab. These are the same clerics the Taliban would visit, kiss, hug, and pray behind when they would come to Pakistan for fund-raising trips. The same clerics who are employed by Western banking institutions who have "Shariah Advisory Boards" for their Middle Eastern presences (I know HSBC has one), and who advise various governments about Islamic law/Shariah, including the Pakistani government.When the Taliban took over Afghanistan, they immediately segregated schools based on gender. The problem? There were no girls' schools. So until they got the money to build them, girls would have to go to Pakistan for schooling. And please. I KNOW you saw the coverage of the Islamabad Red Mosque thing on CNN. That was a GIRL'S SCHOOL. That was a MADRASSAH. With THOUSANDS of students. The militants holed up inside were Maulana Fazlullah's men (the Taliban-wannabes). Not a few of those students (pre-2001 at least) were DAUGHTERS of Taliban officials who could afford to send them to Pakistan. They just could not afford to build such a school in Kabul. Because you know... Western countries immediately sanctioned Afghanistan when the Taliban came into power.And again, women barred from working... they weren't banned from "working" per say. They were banned from working unless in an environment where Islamic standards of gender-segregation could be observed. I'm assuming you read all the newest articles about Saudi modernization in the mainstream press lately. That is Saudi-Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world. THEY are too lazy to meet the demands of their women to make suitable opportunities for them to work (i.e, business offices where women can do their own thing I guess). I don't wanna start restating things that are posted like right up on CNN and BBC. How would you expect a bunch of rag-tag Afghans to do that? They actually paid women who previously worked to stay at home (or those who found themselves needing to work). It's just that they couldn't afford to pay them much. But it was a considerable percentage of what they did have.Women were prohibited from leaving their homes without either a male relative or a male servant because that is Islamic law. They weren't beaten or shot for that, that's ludicrous. That goes against the very essence of how Islam, specifically Sunni Islam, views women. If the Taliban come upon a woman alone randomly wandering the streets, they ask her where she's going and escort her there. Hell, ANYBODY in the world would do that. For their brand of Islam though, women are to be protected at all costs, even at threat to one's own life, never to be harmed. That's something even Salafis will tend to do because that's literally related in many Hadith.Even when it comes to domestic conflict, it's very bad to air your dirty laundry out in public. A husband isn't to raise his voice at his wife in public (and it's bad to do it in private of course). How the hell would the Taliban justify BEATING a woman in public randomly? It's forbidden to even lay a hand on a strange woman, or to look at her. Even their sentence of stoning as a death penalty... if applied to a woman, it leaves the woman covered to make sure no one can see what they consider to be her private beauty (a.k.a all of her). Strange men can't even touch a dead woman's corpse. The thing is, unlike Saudi-Arabia or Iran, which can afford women cops, women soldiers, create opportunities for women to run businesses while maintaining Islamic culture, Afghanistan could not afford any of those things. Those things would have to come like 20 years down the line after the country's rebuilt. The vast majority of males couldn't find employment in Afghanistan, how can people complain about a handful of women? Not to mention that handful were from cities, and were leftovers of Afghanis loyal to the old communist parties that once held sway throughout the country and "invited" the Russians in. Those are the women that started airing their "grievances" to media organizations. They were the only ones who even knew enough English to do such a thing."A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off." s just bullshit. -
Can't you see that there's a serious exchange of ideas going on here? Go post your bullshit posts somewhere else.
-
"Women were prohibited from leaving their homes without either a male relative or a male servant because that is Islamic law."Actually, permission from her husband or father is enough. She doesn't need to be physically WITH a male guy necessarily if it's an urgent-enough task.Btw, though I'm an American, I do have Pakistani family links. A lot of the people I've been introduced to through family, or the familes I've stayed with, have had religious "branches" of the family.I've met women (distantly related in some cases, though more just because I like to brag) who were not only students of Red Mosque-style Madrassas, but had completed the studies (they have like a 4-5 year undergrad course, years 6-8 are like graduate study, and then they do a Ph.D. equivalent type thing to get 'Mufti' status... meaning they are authorized to write fatwas in Sunni Islam... contrast this to Salafis like Osama who has ZERO education in Islam and just 'writes' them willy nilly), they've made it all the way to the highest level. Meaning this one particular woman who has been like a mother to me, this stranger who can't even speak her language, is a MUFTI. That is the Sunni equivalent of a Shi'ite AYATOLLAH. Mullah Omar and all the Taliban are BOUND to listen to her religious rulings because she outranks them all. Btw, we communicate fine because she knows English. Because she's also a doctor (yes, of medicine). And she's also got the Quran committed to memory. And she's not married because she can't find a man who's man enough essentially. She drives herself to school. Her teacher, one of the most conservative clerics (a Pashtun) in South Asia, who could boss around senior Taliban members if he so wished, specifically wrote a new fatwa about how women are allowed to drive and under what circumstances (it's preferred for their husbands/fathers to get them drivers) just because of this one lady.Osama, if he really be a Sunni, is bound to listen to her. And all the other women like her in Pakistan because at times it seems like women outnumber the men in Madrassas. And all these women turn around and exhort the men in their families to man up and become more "religious". Pakistan's graduate schools (the normal ones) are also filled mostly with women.It honestly makes me wonder what the hell the men are doing...And a lot of these people are ethnic Pashtun or Pathans... not living in Afghanistan for some generations, but who probably have relatives who are "Pakistani Taliban".Not a few of these women probably order their men to go fight against the Pakistani Army or against NATO in Afghanistan I'd wager.
-
No, I'm Batman.
-
"Afghan women have come out in droves to protest their treatment under the Taliban, telling gruesome stories of abuse, rape, etc. Why are you working so hard to defend the perpetrators of such actions?"Check the population of Afghanistan, and then get back to me with how many exactly constitute "droves" and whether they accurately represent ALL constituent areas of Afghanistan (i.e, not just from a few major cities).There's also the fact that the Taliban are obviously not angels. But they weren't evil devils either as the American administrations made them out to be. They were just Pashtun. And likely were guilty of ethnic violence on other minorities. Not a few of the women with grievances against the Taliban were from these minorities (from the Northern areas who fought in a civil war against the Taliban).It's all horrible, but it's also retarded to imply they targeted these women because they were women while they also targeted the men right with them. You'd have to look at their treatment of the women who were under the 80% of Afghanistan or so that joined the Taliban, especially the Pashtun. And oh boy, you are not going to find a significant % (again, read: percentage, not just number, because even a hundred women are dwarfed by the 10+ million Pashtun women living in Pakistan alone) of Pashtun women who are going to bash the Taliban.
-
I'm not saying academia doesn't have it's own agenda. Mercy, who doesn't these days. But from an intellectual standpoint (and I consider myself an intellectual most days), I have no longer have tolerance for the folks who want religion or ID taught in schools. From an intellectual, not academic, standpoint, I've seen what the religious right has done to this country since 1980. I won't necessarily blame them for $4 gas, but if you follow the breadcrumbs, you will see how in many areas, the RR has not only prevented progress, but actually knocked us back a few rungs on the ladder. Respect and tolerance aren't a given in my book. They need to be earned. And neocons and the religious right have done nothing to earn either. With regards to the green living agenda that academia is pushing, yes, there is a lot of money to be earned there and some of those guys need to be dipped in shit before taking a swim in the shark tank, but if this is a lesser of two evils situation, I'd much rather make a billionaire out of an unctuous academic who's going to retrofit my house with solar panels and sell me a car that produces zero emissions than give it to corksoakers like Blackwater and Exxon who running this planet into the toilet. And I'm not better than anything. I'm a douche just like every other TB'er on AICN.
-
[Following is copy/pasted]What about the oppression of women under the Taliban? -- Isn't it true that they deprived women and girls of education and health care, that they deprived women of the opportunity to work and that they forced women to wear a burka in the street?
If you ask almost anyone in the USA what they think the first woman executed in Kabul after the Taliban came to power was executed for, they would probably answer "blasphemy or adultery".
If you ask how long the judicial procedure was -- from the time of the apprehension for the crime to the time of the execution, they would probably answer "a few hours to a few weeks".
If you asked how long after the Taliban came to power in Kabul was the woman executed, they would probably answer "a few days to a few months".
And what is the reality - as reported by the wire services -- ?
The woman was executed for "beating her husband to death with a hammer as he slept."
The woman was executed after a judicial procedure that took about two years-- from the time of the murder to the time of the execution.
The execution took place more than three years after the Taliban came to power in Kabul.
The discrepancy between the reality and the media generated expectation in this case is suggestive of what one might actually find if one were in a position to investigate the other points in detail.
Would anyone imagine from what they "knew" about the Taliban that they opened several centers to train women to be doctors? They did!!
As for the burkas, it appears to be the case that outside of areas like Kabul, where a substantial percentage of women had gotten used to dressing in western fashions, women went on dressing the way they had dressed for decades, if not centuries -- with their bodies, hair and faces more or less covered depending on where they were. In and around the home in the countryside, they wore a simple headscarf. In towns, they were more covered up.
The English speaking, college educated women in Kabul -- who were often not only anti-Taliban but anti-religious -- were the people who were most adversely affected by the Taliban and were the most able to communicate their troubles to the Western Media. These women and their Russian speaking counterparts were not, in so many cases, innocent beleaguered secularists caught in a web of religious oppression. They were, quite often, the very people who had been doing their best for over a decade to undermine the cultural foundations of Islam in Afghanistan. It would have been remarkable, in this light, if the Taliban had just left them all alone.
While the educated women – including so many who had been Russian collaborators -- were very adept at manipulating the media, the very traditional women -- who constitute the overwhelming majority of the women of Afghanistan -- were almost completely ignored.
Thus far, based on a LexisNexis wire service and NYT search: No reported executions for adultery in Kabul or Herat during the Taliban Period; No reported executions for adultery in Kandahar after 1996; No executions for adultery by Taliban in Afghanistan after 10/02/00, A total of 4-6 executions for adultery 1/01/97-9/11/01 by Taliban in all of Afghanistan –equally divided between men and women. The most attention getting case – partly responsible for the reporter, Robert F. Burns of the NYT getting a Pulitzer Prize, actually involved the execution in Kandahar of a 40 year old woman with her 38 year old married stepson in late August of ‘96. This story, which included notices of several other executions for adultery in Kandahar and elsewhere in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, was published just after Kabul came under Taliban control. It was followed 6 weeks later (12/14/’96) by an AFP story that cited 3 males stoned to death in Kandahar and 4 males stoned to death in other Taliban controlled areas – all for adultery -- in the prior six weeks. No other wire services report any of these executions in the stated 6-week time frame. It is likely that this AFP story is a garbled version of the Burns report, where people became men, men became “males” and 6 months became 6 weeks. Another garbled story, by veteran AP Afghanistan reporter Kathy Ganon, dated 3/07/01, mentions two women hanged for adultery in Kandahar two weeks before. Other wire service stories covering the same event – such as a UPI report by Amir Shah, on 2/24/01-- say that the two women were executed for prostitution and “corrupting the society”. The combination of attention getting and garbled reports may account for the widespread belief that the Taliban executed many people for adultery in Kabul. The importance of this is that it suggests that the Taliban were careful to observe the rules of evidence in capital cases under Moslem law – four reliable male witnesses to the act of intimacy.
While we are considering media distortions, it is interesting that the full text of the post 9/11 interview between the veteran VOA Pashtun language journalist, Spozhmai Maiwandi, and the head of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, is still not in the public domain. -
because I have to head out for a while, is for people to actually COME VISIT HERE and see for yourself.The thing is, Pakistan's a pretty lawless place. The safest areas are actually the tribal regions if you get local guides or someone 'sponsors' you as their guest.If you come with a group of journalists, or with friends/family who live here, then you're alright. You can visit all these places and people you hear about in the news.Yeah, you can probably try to arrange a meeting or interview with some of these Pakistani Taliban's PR guys. Or better yet, tell them you're a visitor who would like to see how they live for a little while. I know it's probably impossible to do this unless you're of a journalist background, but it's all the same to them. They'll put you up, you can live with them, see how they live, and actually figure out things.Hell, you can just wander around out here alone if you dress up like the locals. Any white/caucasian person would blend right in with the people in the northern/northwestern areas.The next best thing to do is scour old archives of news sites (I specifically remember BBC posting several of these) for articles relating trips/excursions like these.
-
A good wikipedia entry on ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Anyhow, in the court case of "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" in 2005, the court ruled that ID was religion, not science and therefore violated the First Amendment. All proof presented by the ID side to demonstrate that ID was based on scientific fact was shot down as having no basis in reality.
Hitlers eugenics were based on the theory that human beings could be divided into separate species. They cannot, we are all Homo Sapien Spapien, and it has been proven that throughout human history there has been constant gene flow between all human populations throughout the globe. This process has been massively accelerated in modern times.
While the asteroid theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is the most commonly accepted one, when I was in school 20 years ago I was taught more than just the asteroid theory. That the Earth is hit with massive asteroids and comets every so often causing a nuclear winter like scenario is undisputed, weather the asteroid that hit the Yucatán Peninsula 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs is still up for debate.
One modern example of evolution in action is the "superbugs" plaguing modern hospitals. Due to the over prescription of anti-biotics over the last 50 years, several anti-biotic resistant strains have evolved that are very hard for modern medicine to combat. This process can be reproduced and demonstrated in any laboratory and conforms precisely to the theory of evolution.
-
I commend the many fascinating posts in this thread - real insight and clear arguments - peppered unfortunately with the usual adolescent replies. I actually learned a thing or two about Afghanistan. It's sad that a nerdy talkback page gets all this intelligent dialogue when the mainstream media reduces everything to sound bites and scare tactics. I'm so sick of the lack of context in reporting, and also sick of the fact that Hollywood tries to tell us what the news won't, but fails with each maudlin attempt. The only way any of us armchair quarterbacks will ever know what is really going on in the Middle East is for us to actually go there. In the meantime, we're stuck here with Fox, CNN and Hollywood.
-
The problem with the left (even though I'm on it) is that because the media is anything BUT liberal, everything they say and do is held under the microscope. Al Gore goes on and on about global warming but he lives in an ungodly mansion that requires tremendous amounts of resources and he travels in these monstrous caravans that burn insane amounts of fuel. John Edwards preaches about the plight of the homeless but he lives in fortress that gives Buckingham Palace a run for it's money. I both like and want to punch these guys at the same time. Nothing is more reprehensible than talking out of both sides of your mouth. Bush and Cheney and McCain do it daily too, but they aren't held accountable for it. Global warming needs to be addressed yesterday but it also needs better people plugging it. Snake oil salesmen aren't cutting it. And academics are tripping over themselves to be the ones to take the credit for saying "I told you so" when sea levels rise enough to turn Manhattan into a swimming pool. And someone please tell me how this TB went from being about a Greengrass film to intelligent design to global warming. Keerist.
-
I don't actually LIKE the Taliban. There's just not much there to like or dislike (besides their behavior in inter-ethnic warfare within Afghanistan, with Pashtun vs. Tajik vs. Hazara, etc. which I'm totally against the Pashtun on... it's very racist, very un-Islamic), they're just a bunch of kids in the circumstances of unending war. It's their peacefully settled cousins in Pakistan who are actually interesting to observe, who have culture that isn't war and all that. It's like a vision of a peaceful, unfortunately theoretical, Afghanistan, were one to ever exist.Even by religious standards, the Taliban leaders average like 2-4 years of Islamic school before they drop out to go fight. That's not enough to really learn anything about the religion, as far as war and politics are concerned.The same thing applies for the Taliban that applies to the Bush administration. They need to make greater use of the knowledge and education that their civilizations have worked for centuries to provide them. At least the Taliban have an excuse.
-
Journalists don't wind up like him. Just stay the hell away from Karachi, Lahore, even Islamabad aside from hotels and shit. Pakistan's a dangerous country, even local Pakistanis don't walk around Karachi doing the sort of shit that Pearl did.You think getting chopped up is bad? Sorry for the insensitive way of putting it. Try getting kidnapped, being sold into slavery, having your limbs cut off, and being forced to beg in the streets. The non-Islamic parts of Pakistan are frightening.
-
I'm out of here. Got to get into my Flintstones car, peddle myself home and jump on the exercise bike to generate enough heat to cook my tofu burger. And if I have time, I'll go hug a few trees.
-
I've been following Gill's posts all afternoon and if any of this information was reported on the mainstream news I'd be in total shock. As for the
-
I do not say that lightly, and as much as I respect some of the information you have presented, the undeniable apologia you are putting together for the benefit of the Taleban, leads me to no other conclusion. I mentioned earlier, I rarely accept anyone's interpretation at face value. I did some checking and no, not Wikipedia. The first thing I looked at were the executions, I remembered seeing a CNN documentary on how women were treated by the Taliban - it was called Beneath the veil - http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.veil.html. There were far more executions than you mentioned and even the ones you did mention, you appeared to dismiss - because they were accused of prostitution. The second thing I looked at were the RAWA sites -and I add for the sake of balance, that these sites are created by Afghan women who supported the overthrow of the taleban, but it has links to several non-RAWA sites that confirm the harsh treatment of women. http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm. Here is a list of Rules the taleban had, not just for women http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm. The taliban are also mounting a propganda offensive www.sipri.org/contents/conflict/foxley_paper.pdf - not a very good one, but You GiLL do seem to be picking up the slack for them. And finally the State Dept. assessment of the treatment of women under the Taleban -http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm
I openly admit that relying solely on western resources for information, does not present a clear picture, which is why i did enjoy reading some of what you had to say about Islam and the Taleban. However, you appear to be in the revisionist vein when it comes to the documented and incontrovertible attrocities commited by the taleban. And the almost cavalier attitude in the way you dismiss some of the most heinous aspects of their rule, leads me to believe that you are indeed nothing more than a mouth organ for - if not the Taleban itself, then for the policies they promoted. And I do not believe your last assertion that you do not 'LIKE' the Taleban. Re-read your own posts. You practically glow with appreciation for their tactics.
The internet is mostly anonymous, I have no idea who you really are, and what your purpose really is, but I strongly suspect the reason behind such voluminous posts, is, more propoganda, than objective information. -
the majority of the people are always up in arms fighting and killing and calling for somebody's death? The zen buddhists don't do that shit. ...
-
"If you don't mind broaching the subject, what are your thoughts about Afghanistan's strategic importance as a large producer of natural gas as well as a transit country for oil from the Caspian Sea, in connection with the invasion? Was the invasion inevitable, in order to control the gas and oil production? I find it deeply suspect that Hamid Karzai, a Unocal consultant (Unocal had agreements with the Taliban, pre-2001, for gas production) was installed as President. Is the Bin Laden issue ultimately moot given the Administration's true motives for invading?"The thing is, though the oil pipeline thing is a strong theory, made even stronger by the fact that the Taliban were trying to sell the idea of this pipeline themselves in order to make money and do something with the country, it still just doesn't exactly add up.It's certainly possible that we only went in for oil and made a huge error. But an error THIS huge? There is no end in sight for Afghanistan. And the only ends we see are bad news for us. The oil pipeline is a pipe dream now. I guess it's not unreasonable to assume it was a mistake that most people could have made, because it looked like for a year or two there, that our strategy in Afghanistan was going to work. But then the Taliban did exactly what everyone pegged them to do before the war.There are lots of people who believe a war with Afghanistan was pre-planned and that we either let 9/11 happen, made it happen, or exploited it in this regard.All I know is, every decision the West has made with Afghanistan stopped making sense after World War 1, like most decisions by Western nations. The British Empire at least used to make sense, despite being a bunch of ruthless genocidal murderers (their mismanagement of Indian agriculture starved to death more Indians than all the people the Nazis killed in WW2).While I prefer the oil pipeline theory, there's another one that makes dangerous sense. That we just want to dominate the world, and that means not allowing the possibility of a Sunni version of Iran to ever exist. Because unlike Shi'ites, Sunnis are 90+% of the Muslim population, and the leaders of such a state would get priority in terms of allegience from all these Muslims across the world, even ahead of their home countries. I didn't see that as a big deal, but if you're looking to dominate a world order, that could look like a nightmare. The proof for this is in Somalia.Read the wiki on what happened there. Essentially, just like what happened with civil war-era Afghanistan during the 1990s, a few Somalis took things into their own hands and started making their own Islamic Shariah courts to institute law and order in Somalia. It worked. Eventually all the scattered courts (most were Sunni, some were Salafi) allied into one Union with a Taliban-like militia. They took over the country in short order, brought law and order everywhere, opened up the airport, ports, etc. Just like how the Taliban stopped opium growth, the ICU in Somalia stopped piracy and all that jazz.The US immediately accused the ICU of being Al-Qaeda. I can understand accusing some of its Salafist elements of having links with Al-Qaeda, but even those were overblown, and never proven. No attempt was made at even MAKING UP SHIT. They just said "Damn if that ain't some of dem Al-Qaeda right thurr" and peace in Somalia reigned (a slightly liberal version of Taliban-style peace though) for a short while before Ethiopia invaded Somalia to end it all. And now you can see the news updates about what's going on there recently. They are blatantly targeting Islamic targets, not insurgents. They associate Islam itself with the insurgency. Ethiopia, with the complicit acceptance of the "transitional Somalian government", a government elected outside of Somalia by phantom Somalis, kills random Somali civilians and religious clerics.There is no rational explanation for the US' behavior there other than this conspiracy theory of a clash of civilizations between the US and Muslim countries.An interesting anecdote is that immediately afterwards, the US amabassador said the transitional Somali government should incorporate the "moderate" elements of the ICU immediately to prevent civil war. The transitional government of course, refused. Who are these moderate elements? They meant all the Sunni leaders and courts that made up the ICU. It's now UK and US policy to acknowledge Islamic extremists as "Jihadi Salafists" (a hot word in Britain), and Sunnis as 'moderates'. Yet these Somalian Sunnis were essentially their version of the Taliban. And the US is calling them moderates. Crazy.Anyway, all the major leaders fled into exile. Meaning, all the educated people. It's the poor kids left behind who fight for the ICU in an insurgency now, kids who don't know jack about Islam, leaving the door open to abuses during warfare.Somalia was just something truly embarassing for me as an American to hear about. The USA actually supported an alliance of Somali warlords against the ICU. Including the same warlords who fought UN troops and killed our guys back in the 1990s (the bad guys from 'Blackhawk Down'). Can you believe that shit? The warlords were/are terrorizing Somalia, and they were STOPPED. And we didn't even ATTEMPT dialogue, we immediately supported Ethiopia's invasion. And then there was that "reintegrate the moderates" bit as an afterthought.Why did this happen? Why don't they ever release evidence that links these random people to Al-Qaeda? Doesn't anyone else notice how most of the people we KNOW to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda are NOT SHY of that fact? I know I tend to group all Salafis together, and relate them to Al-Qaeda especially, but I don't actually accuse them of literally being Al-Qaeda, only of holding to the same dangerous doctrinal flaws. Not to mention only a minority of the ICU were Salafis, the most were the Sunni 'moderates', including the leaders.In the year 2000, the courts formed a union of Islamic courts, partly to consolidate resources and power and partly to aid in handing down decisions across, rather than within, clan lines.[15] Yet the ICU remained firmly established in the Hawiye clan.[16]As the courts began to assert themselves as the dispensers of justice they came into conflict with the secular warlords who controlled most of the city. In reaction to the growing power of the ICU, a group of Mogadishu warlords formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT). This was a major change, as these warlords had been fighting each other for many years. By the beginning of 2006, these two groups had clashed repeatedly, and in May 2006 it escalated into street fighting in the capital, claiming the lives of more than 300 people. On 5 June 2006, the ICU claimed that they were in control of Mogadishu.[17]
Meanwhile, in the United States the Bush administration neither confirmed nor denied support for either side. However, it was reported that American officials had anonymously confirmed that the U.S. government was funding the ARPCT, due to concerns that the ICU is linked to al-Qaeda and is sheltering three al-Qaeda leaders involved in past terror attacks, including the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.[18]On 6 June 2006 the ICU further claimed it was in control of all the lands up to 100 kilometers (62 miles) inland from Mogadishu. The warlords were reported to have either been captured or to have fled the city, abandoning most of their weapons, with the majority fleeing to Jowhar, which was taken by the ICU militia on 14 June.[19] This brought ICU in control of much of the weaponry in the country, which made a resurgence by the warlords difficult without outside support. The ICU also controlled significant territory outside the capital, including the important town of Balad. In mid-August, ICU militiamen swept into the port town of Hobyo, 500 kilometers north of Mogadishu, meeting no opposition.[20] The ICU organized a clean-up campaign for the streets of Mogadishu on 20 July. This was the first time litter and rubbish had been collected in the entire city since it collapsed into chaos over a decade earlier.[21]
On July 15, 2006, the Islamic Courts reopened Mogadishu international airport, which had been closed since the withdrawal of the international forces in 1995. The first airplane chartered by the Arab League flew from the airport for the first time in 11 years picking up Islamic Courts delegates to the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.[22]
On August 15, 2006, the ICU captured Haradhere, some 500km northeast of Mogadishu, which had become a safe haven for pirates, who had forced shipping firms and international organisations to pay large ransoms for the release of vessels and crews.[23]
On August 25, 2006 the Islamic Courts reopened historic Mogadishu seaport, which was formerly one of the busiest in East Africa but had been shut down for 10 years.[24]
On October 5, 2006 the Islamic Courts declared the formation of the supreme Islamic Sharia court of Banadir province, ending all tribal Islamic Courts in the capital.[25]Ethiopia invaded them a few months later. Americans ordered airstrikes to help them. Damn those damn dirty Somalians, eh? -
You trust the same State Department which started a war in Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the blatant lie of weapons of mass destruction. This, btw, was not an anomaly.Everything I say about the Taliban, I say from experience, of meeting Pakistanis and Afghans both back in New York where I'm from, and in Pakistan who've been to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and to the tribal regions.I'm not saying the Taliban NEVER committed atrocities, though I'm not sure if the word atrocities should be applied if it's not exactly to a large scale. None of those links do what I asked you to do, give me a % of women living in the 80% of Afghanistan that supported the Taliban, who protested being victimized by the Taliban on the basis of culture/religion/whatever. Even if you bring me, what, a thousand women, two thousand women, three thousand woman? Out of the tens of millions in Afghanistan, what does that mean? We've killed more Iraqi women and children than that, many times over. So what exactly does that mean?We just won't be able to see eye to eye and agree on this, the point of difference is simply the faith you put in the American government, and the media. Despite the fact that the former weighs heavily on the latter, and despite the fact that there've only been glowing accounts of "Pakistani Taliban" from Western news outlets, yet these people transform into monsters magically when you cross the border into Afghanistan.Look at how the Brits hid the fact that Prince Harry (if that's the one) was in Iraq. They obviously forgot to ask the Drudge Report to keep a lid on it, probably because it's still a niche internet news source. But if after just that example (and everything that's happened in Iraq, and all the stories constantly published on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, even Fox, that relate how the government repeatedly invented the intelligence it desired), you can trust even a SINGLE word from the American government, well... suit yourself.That's also taking into account that the Bush administration's actions in Afghanistan were mirrored in Somalia, the only other case of a Sunni Islamic state popping up anywhere, and there's much more objective information available on Somalia, especially on the main news outlets. BBC were like ecstatic when the streets re-opened, although you had to laugh when they said that not being able to loudly play music in the streets was a real drawback to peace in a place with one of the most violent recent histories ever.The reason that Islamists like the Taliban in Afghanistan and the ICU in Somalia get support, if you go back to my original posts, is because WE did not get involved in the PROPER way. That is what I had been advocating from the beginning. Everything I say about the Taliban is meant to be as a backup to that. The number one stance of mine was that the United States should not have left Afghanistan after the Russian war. Even Hollywood just made a movie about that. And the rest of my posts go to show, that wasn't the only error. It was the first in a long line of inexplicable errors, that I encourage you to try and rationalize for yourselves.
-
I just have no response for the RAWA links. You already made my case for me, they're anti-Taliban. But you trust them anyway, so go ahead. I don't."There were far more executions than you mentioned and even the ones you did mention, you appeared to dismiss - because they were accused of prostitution."That, btw, was not me. I copy/pasted that from the other link. I said it was interesting reading, and that that sort of investigative research ought to be done into all the claims surrounding the Taliban... we're not totally at odds, you should just search through more media sources, rather than sites like RAWA's.Also, the issue was not punishing prostitution with death. The issue was punishing women for being women with death. There's a massive difference, even if the former is pretty drastic compared to Western laws and customs.
-
If you notice my responses to toadkiller right now, the only issue were with the Afghan Women's organization known as RAWA.The claim by the State Department of the United frickin' States was just waived off on principle.And most people in the world would have done the same thing.Even more ridiculous is that somehow, toadkiller's posts reflect some sort of moral conflict between the US and the Taliban. Now keep in mind, I have issues, moral issues, with our politics in that region, and especially with the lies propagated there. But I never once suggested that the Taliban are a more moral entity, or a greater force for good, or whatever the hell you want to call it than America. That's kind of ludicrous. And yet, toadkiller, your post automatically seemed to give off the vibe like America's integrity was in question. I don't mean their political integrity, but like the very moral integrity of America. And all that at the hands of a bunch of Afghani yahoos in turbans holding Kalashnikovs.When people say the US is in a bad way these days, they aren't kidding.You think that's bad, go to some European forums.Slightly related, the opinion of Americans by most Pakistanis hasn't really changed that much in the last few years. They sure as hell hate America, but I've had noone question me or my own personal beliefs about America's foreign policy here. They just automatically assume that all Americans are sane and disagree with their totalitarian leader who rigged his way into power twice. They just can't comprehend us being... well... what some of us really are. It was not the reaction I had been expecting.
-
From the Wiki article on RAWA:RAWA was highly critical of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, emphasizing casualties among the civilian population. The organization went so far as to threaten to sue United States authorities for unauthorized use of four photos from their website that were used in propaganda handbills that were dropped on various cities in Afghanistan during the 2001 invasion. [3] After the defeat of the Taliban regime by U.S. and Northern Alliance forces, RAWA warned against the Northern Alliance as being equally fundamentalist and dangerous. They continue to charge that the current government led by President Hamid Karzai has no support in most areas of Afghanistan, and that fundamentalists are enforcing anti-woman laws as they were under the Taliban. These claims are supported by media reports about the Herat government of Ismail Khan, who has created a religious police that forces women to obey strict dress and behavior codes, as well as many reports by Human Rights Watch. [4] [5]That kind of makes me look bad in my last post.
-
Is that they're there now in Afghanistan, and they're not disappearing.The past is, in the end, done with and over.All of this discussion was supposed to give everyone insight into the variable at play. So now what?Does anyone have any clue on how to win the war in Afghanistan? How to defeat the Taliban?And if you don't, and if the Taliban win, then what?To those who believe that the Taliban will then line up 20 million women and start chopping off their fingers, do you honestly expect to see this on CNN one day in a few years when it seems we might inevitably fail?What if the Taliban get ELECTED into power? Women vote in Afghanistan. The people have been overwhelmingly electing ex-Taliban religious-types. How do we explain this? Is it just the fact that we're not that much better off than the Taliban at their worst (re: RAWA's anti-US stance). Or is it that we're WORSE than the Taliban if you include the sheer destruction we've inadvertently wrought on Afghanistan's infrastructure (much like what we did in Iraq).What's going to happen in a world where Afghanis think the Taliban is better for them than America? The fact that they're more popular than NATO in many parts of the country is something that even the NATO commanders have attested to.This counts as a defeat for America in every possible interpretation. What the hell's it mean for the world when the weakest possible opponent defeats the United States? What does this mean for the direction of political influence (assumingly in the direction of China)? What economic ramifications will this have on the current state of the economies in the West?What will America do next? React logically? Or irrationally to these developments? And in what form? And will an irrational reflex reaction by America result in anything other than something disastrous?Can Obama stop any of this? Right now I think our only prayer is that half his rhetoric is there just to appease the conservatives, and that if he were to take office, he'd take charge and fix shit.
-
Jimmy Carter
-
Thanks for your thoughts ... I've gotta run so I just wanna say something quick for now ...
Yes, I do think the the Bush Administration made an error THAT huge. How? Total hubris and lack of understanding of consequences by the civilian leadership comprising the lead NeoCons, most of whom are already gone - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. They ignored all warnings of occupying Iraq and Rumsfeld in his infinitesimal wisdom, deliberately did so with a smaller than necessary force because his ulterior motive was to downsize (streamline) the military in order to shift funding to the private contractors (mercenaries) who could operate beyond American jurisdiction.
I appreciate your information and links provided, it really gives me a lot of food for thought to examine Afghanistan more closely. Whether the goal of controlling the oil and gas output in Afghanistan was successful or not, I don't doubt it being a primary motive on the Administration's part. Later ... -
An economic collapse in the United States is not farfetched. Let's say that in response to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the worsening economic situation at home, the US makes one final great blunder, and let's say we invade Iran.Everything goes bad. From Iran likely possessing supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles from China that can sink aircraft carriers (which they have no defenses against), to triggering an Iran vs. Isreal air-war, and a Hizbollah vs. Israel war in Northern Israel. Now the economy is really in the shitter.What's going to happen at home? Do you honestly think Americans are going to take this in stride? Need I remind you that Americans are not the same people we were in the 1920s. We have massive issues with gangs and crime. There was that documentary that compared parts of Miami to Iraq for Christ's sake.In the event of a complete breakdown of law and order in areas of the United States, gotham_night, perhaps even YOUR town, what will you do? Obviously nobody will be giving a rat's ass about the Taliban then. But what are YOU going to do if one day somehow the UN has to send peacekeepers to the United States?Or worse... the US deploys the military in its own cities... you know what I said earlier. Military is not police. And we don't have enough SWAT teams to run an entire country.This all sounds crazy and far-fetched but the situation today sounded even more far-fetched just a few years ago.Perhaps people need to stop worrying about the Taliban, or Creationism vs. Evolution, or Conservatives vs. Liberals, and other shit like that.PS: I have absolutely nowhere to go with this, no answers or theories of any sort, just throwing out all the questions that keep me up nights.
-
You get an "A" for effort there, buddy. I'm starting to think the only thing that could kill this TB is fire.
-
oh, and as far as the whole "US economic breakdown" goes, the US has spent roughly the same amount on the Iraq War altogether as it does on Social Security annually. If I remember correctly, the US accounts for just over a quarter of the globe's GDP. And I know, I know, I harp on economics so much I'm starting to piss myself off.
-
Yes, the hilarious sounding Rammstein song."America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success." -Sigmund Freud"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.
We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to
trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both
commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never
developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia
really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations
between two gangs of frauds."
-H.L. Mencken"The theory behind representative government is that superior
men--or at all events, men not inferior to the average in ability and
integrity--are chosen to manage the public business, and that they
carry on this work with reasonable intelligence and honesty. There is
little support for that theory in the known facts..."
-H.L. Mencken"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
-H.L. Mencken"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
-H.L. Mencken "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H.L. Mencken -
who the fuck cares about superman!? the sword and the sorcerer? what the hell?
-
While the US is unlikely to encounter a economic collapse, there is definitely trouble ahead beyond the mortgage crisis. American currently has the 9th highest GDP per capita in the world and the largest economy in the world. According to The Economist, China will pass the US in 10 years to become the largest economy in the world, and India will pass the US sometime after that. Under George W. Bush the US national debt has gone from approx 5 Trillion to approx 9 Trillion, with China being the number 1 lender to the US. China, in addition to being the largest foreign holder of US debt, also is the largest foreign holder of US currency. If China wished, they could dump US currency and debt onto the world market, driving the value of the US dollar way way down. While this would not technically bankrupt America, it would greatly reduce its buying power and the US standard of living would tank. Thanks to the possibility of a Chinese economic "bomb", whenever you hear about Chinese spies stealing American technology, no one in the US government starts banging the drum. Also, one top economist for the CIBC today projected by 2012 a barrel of oil will be $200 and a gallon of gas will be $7. This will definitely reduce the competitiveness of any industrial economy that has not started to become more energy efficient.
-
"They ignored all warnings of occupying Iraq and Rumsfeld in his infinitesimal wisdom, deliberately did so with a smaller than necessary force because his ulterior motive was to downsize (streamline) the military in order to shift funding to the private contractors (mercenaries) who could operate beyond American jurisdiction."Talk about hero factories. Mercenaries working for multinationals! Now we can all be our favorite video game characters from "near-future" scenarios in real life. In the near future. I swear, don't they all start off as working for some multinational corporation's private SWAT team? I think you just figured out my issue with Iraqi security for me. The reason we haven't been training the Iraqi police with our own experienced police departments and their special tactical units? Perhaps the private security firms were supposed to be doing that on the average Iraqi taxpayer's dollar."I appreciate your information and links provided, it really gives me a lot of food for thought to examine Afghanistan more closely. Whether the goal of controlling the oil and gas output in Afghanistan was successful or not, I don't doubt it being a primary motive on the Administration's part."Yeah, I do too. But the apocalyptic clash of civilizations is just so much more exciting.
-
I keep hearing about that Chinese economic "bomb". What do you think will happen if the American standard of living tanks were that to happen? I honestly don't think it will lead to a breakdown of law and order generally speaking but I'm pretty sure it will happen in certain parts of the country.I don't suppose you've heard of any good ideas, even cockamamie ones? I was thinking perhaps the government should start subsidizing oil costs to lessen the impact on consumers. We can just add it to our debt, it's so huge anyway... but then... what is to be gained from making life easy for us?The other thing that will correlate I think is more military adventures abroad to establish our dominance over resources like oil. The basis of credit and wealth is essentially faith in the system in the end, right? That's what's backing the dollar, trust. Nothing to establish faith in America like the fact we control oil and shit. Even the places where we have no intention of developing anything (the Afghanistan oil pipeline theory).The Chinese are playing it like they don't care what we're up to. I wonder what they're planning.
-
you should be careful about the Economist. I usually enjoy reading it, but despite it's name, it is usually vague and prefers to use international groups figures, rather than actual econ. papers (this way they sacrifice accuracy but they can't be blamed for mistakes, don't have to go over all the various econ. papers and decide which have the strongest cases, and get to avoid pissing off various econ. camps.). For example, take the last 10 years. China's economy grew at roughly 5 times the rate of America's, yet in that same time frame, in the difference between GDP per capita, America's has doubled that of China's (the US has had the largest economy since roughly 1890, China's starting growing 30 yrs ago from a Communist production level). Given China's population, it only needs to reach a quarter the US's GDP per capita for their economy to be on par with America's... but that's most likely decades away. The media always misrepresents economics because almost everyone finds it boring, much (ie, macro-economics) is counter-intuitive and not-for-sure, and explanations are very detailed and have alot of caveats. And, China would never collapse the US economy unless China wants to commit economic suicide (a shitload of its reserves are in greenbacks, it's an export based economy and the US is its largest trading parter, collapsing the dollar would collapse China's urbanization in the foreseeable future).
-
I have no idea why but the BBC never approves my comments on their news articles for events taking place in Pakistan. What the hell? They can check my IP address to make sure. I won't be here for much longer.They approve random people like "we r hate it the amerika YOU STUPID YOU" or "We can't let the terrorists threaten our way of life..."...:|
-
I meant chuckmc, and have no idea why I put your moniker in the title
-
That was chuckmc. Other people are actually posting in this TB ya know.
-
People? Ring Magazine? Posters at Sherdog? Seriously, how does the discussion go when debating whether to move somebody up in the official Taliban rankings?
-
By disguising the enemy as our allies.toadkiller, I did kind of brush off your accusations of me just spouting Taliban propaganda before.Here's why.When I mention "sincere" Taliban, I refer to those factions within the Taliban who actually try to strictly follow their understanding of Islam (which falls under the Sunni branch). Make sense?And that these "sincere" Taliban are to be distinguished from Mullah Omar and the factions allied with Al-Qaeda. Like how the Pakistani government and intelligence agencies were briefly hoping to divide them and encourage the 'mainstream' Taliban that were left to join up with Karzai's government or defeat it and take over.*The US's plan is not much different.*The US is actively courting Taliban members to defect to the Karzai government. They make a huge show of the ones that do on BBC/CNN/etc. where I've run into several pieces during the last year about who's who amongst the ex-Taliban and what they're doing now in Karzai's government. *None* of these people have changed. They have the same views on religion, women, everything. Yet now they'e back in government. And the US doesn't care. We never cared about how they treated the women. Not because we're sick evil fucks too, but because we might have been overemphasizing the extent to which they were.The plan to "win" Afghanistan is to HAND IT BACK OVER TO THE TALIBAN.If they can't drive an immediate wedge between Mullah Omar & crew and Al-Qaeda, they'll do it bit by bit, slowly.Remember the bit in the news about the two British government agents arrested and deported by Karzai's government for trying to meet with Taliban officials while having like $20k of cash on them? It was on CNN, BBC, NYTimes, everything. What do you think they were doing?Slowly, but surely, the US plans on bringing over enough of the Taliban to the Afghan government's side... enough to deplete the insurgency (notice how the Taliban couldn't even muster up a spring offensive this year, though US intelligence expected it), enough to pass the critical threshold where the Afghan government is now no longer "alien" and Afghans go back to it in droves, and the US can get the hell out of dodge.Karzai does NOT want this. He wants NATO to stay, the Taliban to be defeated militarily. He turned down Paddy Ashdown for that reason. He deported those Brits caught trying to meet Taliban reps for that reason. He is terrified that when NATO leaves, they'll be leaving him with a government full of Taliban who hate his guts.We are not only giving Afghanistan BACK to the SAME PEOPLE who have done all these "horrific" things (impyling either that we're okay with these things or that they never happened to begin with as we said they did), we are giving them an Afghan Army and Air Force! And billions of dollars.Yes, this is completely crazy. Whether the Taliban are evil or not, who the hell cares. The point being, they are now going to be pretty damn pissed off. The balance of power in the region is upset once again. If the Taliban were dangerous before, imagine now. The name "Taliban" is a trick in and of itself. Any religious Sunni Afghan who wants more religion in government is essentially TALIBAN. That's like three quarters of the bloody country.We don't care that we're about to set up Afghanistan even worse relative to us and our future than we did after the Russians left! We just want to get out with a 'W' on our record.Worst case scenario: Afghanistan goes on a rampage in 2030 and conquers/unites many Central Asian states under the banner of "radical Islam" (well it's not entirely radical as I've set up before, it's just Islam). Afghanistan will be able to bend Pakistan to its will... Because half of Pakistan will support Afghanistan so the other half will go along. Nukes for the Taliban within 50 years! Something that was impossible, that we claim to want to avoid, we will help cause.Oh well, I guess it'll be Russia's problem again.
-
It's a military heirachy. So Mullah Omar calls the shots. He picks commanders who are loyal to him. No big surprise there.
-
Do you have any solutions or answers? No offense, but anyone can criticize. What is it you would suggest the US does differently? Political realities aside, meaning, the US can employ it (potentially) full military and economic powers (that is, everything from glassing the Middle East to flooding it with millions and millions of better armed, trained troops; complete air superiority; and a flood of armor to which there's no answer; to trying to buying-off each and every individual there). I realize I sound like a smartass here, but, that is in no way my intent. You're very informed on the region and conflict, and I'm interested in what you think.
-
Steve Grant, that is a valid point about The Economist, but as they say, never put two economists in the same room because they will never agree on anything. I think while you can debate the time period, the idea that China will pass the US to become the largest economy in the world will most likely happen. Also it is true that China would most likely not want to hurt their largest trading partner economically. Its basically the economic version of Mutual Assured Destruction. However it does give China significant leverage over the US when discussing anything, much as they did recently when they publicly mused about dumping some of their greenbacks for the Euro. And it is also ironic that the US is using Chinese money to finance a war in Iraq that the US cannot afford.
-
The strongest evidence against China declaring economic warfare against the US (at least in the foreseeable future) is that they willingly allowed a tenth of their reserves to disappear while the dollar has been adjusting towards reality. Also, much of the "dollars" they "have" are bonds. The US doesn't have to give them shit, as long as the US doesn't expect foreign government to continue financing Congressional deficits (the speed and scale of bond purchases in recent years are very good indicators that it's central banks, not private investors, that are purchasing US bonds). Basically, China is following the Tiger economy model: using the US as the motor for urbanization and attempting to artificially deflate the greenback to keep their goods cheap in US markets. The East Asian economies aren't financing our debt for our benefit.
-
"inflate" not deflate the greenback. They want to keep imports relatively cheap in US markets.
-
reality... all of our social security "surplus" is even less material than those Chinese bonds (that is, the social security we spend a trillion on annually, one third of the congressional budget). Basically, Congress raided the SS surplus to fund random other shit over the years... and left Congressional IOU's. It all equals out through the Congressional accounting method, but, in reality, congressional IOU's are bonds, and bonds are paid with tax-payer dollars. So the upcoming SS crisis we face, that our SS surplus alleviates, is non-existent. In fact, the SS surplus is worse non-existent, the tax-payer is going to have to double-pay it, then increasingly face higher payroll deducted taxes unless that "evil" Bush's SS reform (first championed by that "awesome" Clinton) is passed (but, still, it is a whole other pandora's box). Why people want to give the Federal Government freer reign and turn over even more responsibility over citizens' lives is beyond me...
-
I have also read that the US has wanted to deflate the value of the dollar to try to stay competitive with China. However, if there was a major incident over something like Taiwan, the economic bomb to a lesser or greater extent would be definitely something they could threaten the US with.
-
China under values the yuan (which is perpetually possible, it's over valuing that makes Soros richer) which the US has a problem with, and proves various international organizations more interested in keeping an even heel rather than performing the whole point of their existence. And the economic bomb would hurt the US and the entire globe, no question, but it would hurt China so much more right now.
-
The problem with social security is as much about demographics as it is about finance. Because of the baby boom bulge, there are just not enough workers to pay for the benefits of the old fogies. If it has been properly managed from an actuarial sense, everyone should of paid up enough over their life time to cover the costs during their golden years. However because of the shell game you mentioned and because when social security was first introduced it began paying out immediately to people who had never payed in, and the difference has never properly been made up, now it is in a royal mess. What could the US have done to fix domestic problems with the money they have spent on Iraq if they never went in?
-
I think it is debatable if the economic bomb would hurt China more than the US, as their trade with Japan, Australia, India etc is growing rapidly so they are by no means a one trick pony. As evidence to this, despite the current slowdown in the US economy, China is still going strong. Regardless, because they are essentially totalitarian, if the Chinese need to save face the government is definitely willing to let the average Chinese citizen's standard of living to drop to make that happen.
-
What could we have done with the Iraq money? Very little. The media seriously downplays the problem we face. If you want, I'll give a basic rundown of continuing our current system (giving the cons), and the proposed correction (giving the benefits and cons). I might not do it tonight, though, I started drinking 10 minutes ago. And it will most likely be very long.
-
gotham_night is a troll and you're giving him what he wants. Come on, based on what he's said... I think he's at most in high school.
-
I find it had to believe that the 200 million USD being spent every day on the Iraq war could not be put to much better use spending it on infrastructure, social security, providing health care for the 1 in 7 Americans who have none, but I am open to the possibility. But I guess the bottom line is that the US cannot borrow money forever, eventually some of it will need to get paid back.
-
As much as the US spends on Iraq, it is nowhere, even close, to the ballpark of US social spending. Health care is an entire other issue (and if I explain the demographics of the uninsured, it will piss off all the liberals here)... I can also give a run down of why Americans spend more on H.C. than any other nation (also contrary to Democrat talking points, but not to a lot of the reasoning behind them) and the broad-stroke economic difficulties facing the market and even more gov. involvement. And, our debt is a whole other issue as well (not as big as it should be or continue to become, but, that's Congress).
-
The US health care system does not service the average American as well as it could. Americans spend 50% more on health care than Canadians. Canadians, on average, live 3 years longer than Americans, and American infant mortality is 50% higher than Canadian. Morbidity rates for all major diseases are statistically identical between Canada and the US. Yes, the morbidity rate for breast cancer is lower in the US than Canada, but for neck cancer it is lower in Canada than in the US, etc. There are wait time issues, nothings perfect, but the conditions are triaged and allocated based on need, not ability to pay.
-
international comparisons are useless, for so, so, so many reasons. Shit, I'm starting to realize I promised to research and write (summary version, of course) the equivalent of several memos. I'll do it, if you want. Just not tonight.
-
No problem, no rush. I have been around long enough to know that 18 year old Bowmore and typing don't mix well. Cheers!
-
I love this talkback.
-
Apr 24, 2008 10:40:49 PM CDT
I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT HEALTHCARE EXCEPT THIS
by bringingsexyback
The hospitals and doctors are astronomically overcharging the health care providers, expecting their charges to be negotiated down in turn. To maintain profitability, the providers pass on the costs to patients in higher premiums, deductibles and rejected covered charges. The wholesale privatization of hospitals in the 90s has made things far worse. Instead, the gummint should have improved systems, controlled costs. Why are the pharmaceuticals selling medicines here for many times the price they sell for in other countries? Why are Americans allowing ourselves to get fucked so bad?
-
Apr 24, 2008 10:43:05 PM CDT
GOTHAM I WISH YOU WOULD SAY THAT SHIT TO XIPHOS' FACE
by bringingsexyback
I wouldn't wanna be you at that moment, you willing ass whore.
-
Except your mother sending you to get her pads once a month? Not to mention the blood stains on your face.
-
But I'm not buying it. You are a prolfic - and fast, writer, I will give you that. That may sway some who are impressed with volume, instead of content, but not me. You also certainly have a keen grasp of the part of the world in which you live - by the way Gill is a fairly common surname in India and Pakistan, I do not know if you ever identified yourself as an ethnic Indian or Pakistani, although you alluded to relatives there, not that it really matters. That grasp of your environment means that you are particularly adept at diseminating certain information, obscuring others, and flat out lying about the rest. You have impressed some with the length, if not breadth of your knowledge of Islam, but you hoisted yourself on your own rhetorical petard with comments like these "...how can people complain about a handful of women? Not to mention that handful were from cities, and were leftovers of Afghanis loyal to the old communist parties that once held sway throughout the country and "invited" the Russians in. Those are the women that started airing their "grievances" to media organizations. They were the only ones who even knew enough English to do such a thing." The thing is, they were not justr a handful of women. Yes, they were the only ones who can speak English, the only ones brave enough in a country that killed women who spoke to men other than family members. The only women who COULD stand up for the way there were being treated to make their case. You never answered regarding the Beneath the Veil documentary. For those not familiar, it was undertaken, with EXTREME personal risk by a female journalist, travelling and interviewing equally brave women. It showed video footage of at least three women being publicly executed in a soccer stadium. I listed other abuses - and I also provided links besides RAWA that showed the enormous abuse of girls and women by the taleban abuse. Iwill conceed one thing, a lot of that abuse happened and was reported within the urban centers, but that is because the women in the rural areas had no one to advocate for them, and suffered just as much if not worse. But concerning RAWA, just because they are advocating for better treatment of women, it does not make their claims false. As for the State Dept. I suppose you can pick and choose what you want to believe, but when it is only one of many reports concerning the abuses, well I chose to believe it. Your backpedaling on 'sincere' taleban is also specious. Your earlier posts made no distinction betweeen the Taleban of the late 1990's - the ones who oppressed and abused and killed, and your new and improved 'sincere' taleban. As for Western media loving the pakistani taleban, where is that? Regarding your Lexis/Nexis search for execution and adultery, that is just laughable. First, you tried to limit the search for executions to just 'adultery', then you tried to use Lexis/Nexis as proof that there were few if any executions. Well, sure, Lexis/Nexis will not be reporting murders/executions of women in Afghanistan during that time period because the entire wetserm media - all media, were kicked out! There was no covereage within afghanistan by media - credible or otherwise. It took the efforts of the above mentioned Beneath The veil (which you did not address) to shed any light on the truly brutal regime. Another canard from you regards women voting for the taleban -from everything I have read, not only did women not vote in large numbers for the taleban, they did not vote in large numbers at all. And most of that voting was in urban areas - which you stated yourself would be comprised of educated women who would be inimical to the taleban. And added to that, the taleban did not WANT them to vote, and threatened them with death.
You have a unique view, and insights that can provide for stimulating conversation, and I encourage you to continue to share some of those views, but I find your statements about and for the taleban to be very troubling, not to mention revisionist and propaganda. I am not, and never will be, a person who marches in lock step with any ideology, and though I am a very proud former member of the American military, I concede that America is not the sole moral autority - and I never said that either (another thing you falsely inmplied about me).
As I have said, you have a unique view, but you will find me implacable with regards to revisionism of any kind, but especially with regard to those who have commited documented attrocities.
-
I'm gonna check out that Beneath the Veil doc. Christ, that's all I have in my queue now is docs. And Cloverfield. Gill does type fast, doesn't he? Quite an intriguing person.
-
Limit of 80 pounds at Sam's Club.
-
...in this tiny little box? Must drive you nuts after a while. Are you using Word and doing a cut/paste, or do you never look at what you type because you're so goddamned fast? My fingers are tired just scrolling through these comments - fascinating as they are.
-
Can someone win the Nobel Peace Prize twice? Because Jimmy's got that one locked up. See what you can do with talking that you can't with a missle?
-
It is a harrowing documentary, not long though. As for typing fast, I suppose I do, but that is why i have so damn many typos! I hat the lack of edit feature!
-
Copy/paste from Notepad for long posts ...
-
I don't mind long docs. If it's good, it's time well spent, better than playing video games. More kids should watch docs instead of doing whatever the hell they do on MySpace or World of Warcraft. The dumbing down of America continues unabated ...
-
it's not that smiling motherfucker nor that hooker. the cosmic forces have decided that mccain has went through tougher shit to earn it.
-
Getting ready for bed, and she is a good woman to see before I close my eyes!
-
And Prossor, is the smiling motherfucker Clinton, and the hooker Obama, or vice versa?
-
Apr 24, 2008 11:52:35 PM CDT
GOTHAM'S BEEN SORE EVER SINCE HIS DADDY STARTED TAKING ENZYTE
by bringingsexyback
Between the sore anus and the aching jaw, it's no wonder he's seeking solace here.
-
http://metamerist.c om/images/jm st.png
-
Gotham_night is, hands down, the all time biggest douchebag to ever troll this forum. That's no small feat. In fact, I'm more inclined to believe it's some kind of act or ironic performance art, because the sincerity and tenacity of his stupidity is so monumental. But if he's really just THAT stupid, then it's almost impressive. Mediocrity and ignorance are the bread and butter of most trolls, but genuine numbskulled idiocy and a sneering rejection of all things quality in every facet of daily life, on the scale that he's shown in this and other talkbacks? That shit is astonishing. Gotham, based on your worldview, I'm sure you've considered it, but I'm asking you, for all our sake, please DON'T kill yourself. The sun will shine again tomorrow on something good that you hate, and I just want to be there to hear you tell us why it sucks.
-
No he isn't. The current holder of the prize is Braffed. Previous holders have been characters such as Mercier. He's really small potatoes compared to them
-
although I may tell you that you are proof that conception is possible through anal sex.
-
Take that, Hitlah!
-
Many, many posts ago someone said that there wasn't much, if anything, we could have done with the $1B a week we're pumping into the Iraq War. It's taken me this long to respond because my head only JUST stopped spinning. That may very well be the most outrageous comment in this TB yet. At one point in the not-to-distant future, we will hit the one trillion dollar mark. With that money, and the rest of the money that we will pump into Iraq since we will be there forever, we could have done the following. Built tidal stations on both the east and west coast to decrease our dependence on oil and coal and eliminate the rolling blackouts that will become the national pastime in summers to come. We could have created countless make-work projects to fix the crumbling infrastructure and put people to work who have been laid off and about to join the foreclosure ranks. We could have insured that the schools which are slashing their language and athletic programs right now wouldn't have to. We could have built a few more prisons and upgraded our existing ones so that we wouldn't have to worry about early release programs for bottom dwelling rapists and murderers who should have been dropped in a shark tank in the first place. And there you go, we could have built shark tanks. A shark tank in every city. Go see pedophiles dropped into the tank with Jabberjaw. Fun for the whole family. But what do I know? I'm just a leftwing nutjob who's more interested in helping unfortunate people, even if they aren't willing to help themselves, rather than lining the pockets of already filthy rich jagoffs who have made their millions off the misery of others.
-
I really didn't know what to say to anyone who can so easily dismiss the actual and opportunity costs of this war, as well as the effects on the military, our troops and assorted fallout. Insane.
-
but there was an excellent article in vanity fair a few months ago that put the true cost of the war up to this point- and it had already hit $3TRILLION. Basically, they stripped away the bullshit accounting practices that the US government indulges in (not declaring things yet to be paid for) and when it came out the total cost was frightening. They also pointed out how some cheapskate (unbeievable in this context, but) measures had saved a couple of mill at the time but cost hundreds now (there was one example about transport that was shocking). Fucking scary stuff.
-
you know damned well what they'd have done with it. Tax cuts for the super rich.
-
BTW that comment was from Stevie Grant whom I had encounters with in a previous talkback on the subject of Halliburton, KBR and assorted war profiteers. Needless to say our stances were polar opposite.
-
and have had many dust ups with him as I think I'm waaaaaay less liberal than most that post here, but I know for a fact that I'm miles to the left of some of these vile fascists
-
I'm always right! Don't you like being right?
-
Funny. I'm going back to kicking Braffed in the other TB. Have a good weekend.
-
It's curious how the MSM has turned turned "liberal" into a dirty word. It seems the only labels lately that don't cause eyes to roll are moderate or progressive. Although "conservative" is still safe in many circles. I call myself left leaning because I believe in global warming and getting our ass in gear to address the problem. I'm all for a privatized-socialized healthcare system so that guys like me who are willing to pay $200 a month in premiums can jump to the front of the line while at the same time an uninsured self-employed contractor who pays taxes yet can't afford health insurance doesn't have to pick which one of his fingers to reattach when he accidentally cuts a few off. I'm all for making sure our education system is the best in the world, bar none, so that we will produce more brainiacs and less gangbangers. I'm all for sending assistance to countries like Haiti that ask for our help before we invade countries that didn't so that people, regardless of skin color, don't have to resort to mixing a dash of sugar into a mud pie and that being their meal of the day. I'm all for a woman's right to choose and gay marriage. At the same time I'm not interested in taking away people's right to own guns, but I'm all for feeding them through a woodchipper the instant they use that gun to harm an innocent person. The guy in Texas who stopped a home invasion of his neighbor's house by blowing the culprits to hell with a shotgun should be receiving a good citizens award instead of a possible jail sentence. I just get so tired of the MSM painting all liberals as pot smoking, fetus and freedom hating hippies.
-
Is this TB officially dead?
-
I lean to the left with socialised healthcare, abortion, equal rights etc, and to the right on the Eu, big v small government etc. And I'd take away the 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat.
-
I stand corrected - I meant insurance carriers, not the primary care providers. But the way I see it, it looks like the hospitals are charging a lot for procedures because they anticipate those charges to be abated after submitting them to the insurance companies, which I am in total agreement with you as acting egregiously to both the providers and patients. I value the rest of your post, I'm very much in agreement with you on nearly everything. But I do think the government does need to intervene, and amend its own policies vis-a-vis Medicare, because privatization has really escalated the problem.
-
You've hit the nail on the head with regards to frivolous litigation and corrupt insurance companies being the biggest reason why our healthcare system is broken. But just because the government has mishandled things up until this point, doesn't mean we remove them completely from the equation. The system needs to be completely overhauled. I realize that it sounds foolishly utopian that we can start from scratch and the government will get it's act together and eventually run a successful socialized healthcare system, but at this point hope is all we have. The government runs/maintains our public schools, our law enforcement, our fire department, our highways, etc. and while none of those services are perfect, if your house is on fire a firetruck tends to show up, when you drop your kids off at public school a teacher tends to educate them, if you need to drive from New York to California more times than not you'll find you can make the entire trip on something called a highway, and if you come home to find it was robbed the police will generally come out to get your statement. These are all government run services and the same people who rail against socialized medicine fail to remember that they use socialized services on a daily basis. They don't always work but the success rate is high enough that we can rest easy. Throw out garbage lawsuits against doctors and you'll be more than halfway to cleaning healthcare up.
-
Most of the services you mentioned are run by local government. I am quite sure you are not advocating turning healthcare over to potentially thousands of local or even State gov't. Just thought I would point that out, in the event you need to use the very convincing argument of people who use socialized services on a daily basis.
-
They and their crony Bushfuck have partially privatized Medicaid and why in the fuck are we paying astronomical prices for the same medicines being sold cheaper across the Canadian border? FUCK!!!!!!
-
Apr 25, 2008 12:54:21 PM CDT
Anchorite: I think the John Ritter case is a prime example
by toadkillerdog
Of both the excessive litigation and money grab, and of the courts working. The widow, who had already settled a multi-million dollar suit, sued the doctors in the emergency room for not diagnosing an obscure disease that no emergency room doc would ever look for in a heart attack patient. Then she sued the doctor who diagnosed that same condition years earlier, - I forget the reason behind that one. But she lost the suits - and deservedly so. Sometimes the system works.
But you are quite correct, malpractice insurance is totally out of control, and while I do not like putting too hard of a limit on tort reform, some type is need to reign in costs and litigation. -
Apr 25, 2008 12:57:03 PM CDT
What does Montel Williams have to do with this discussion?
by toadkillerdog
Why would you inject him into the discussion?
-
In my opinion the primary blame for the mess in US health care is with the Insurance companies. Since they are there first and foremost to make money for their shareholders, their primary incentives are to charge as much as possible and pay out as little as possible. In general the free markets are the most efficient way to run things, but for anything that is deemed a basic human right the public sector has to step in to prevent profiteering and corruption at the expense of human suffering. These services should include Police, Fire, Education and Health Care. Can you imagine having to buy police insurance so that you could afford to prosecute the thief who broke into your house and pay for his incarceration? What Canada did in the 1960s was essentially to remove the insurance companies from the process, making the government the only medical insurance company for primary health care. The Canadian health care system is more cost effective than the US and provides a longer lifespan to its citizens. Not perfect, but the most practical solution for the average citizen to provide as long a lifespan as is feasible. The most important things a society can do to give people the best chance possible to rise out of poverty is to give them a good education, keep them healthy and provide an environment where they can get a good job.
-
While the Canadian system does have advantages that we can hope to one day incorporate, it also has some big disadvantages as well - at least as far as importing to the United States. Primarily, one of scale. Canada has @ 33 Million people. The United States @ 330 million. Providing the same level of care that the Canadian model does, would be exhorbitant - but not impossible. However, it would need to incorporate in some capacity, private insurance. There is also the degree of care. Ther United States has the finest health care in terms of training and medical expertise, in the world. That costs money. Big money. It will have to be replaced if we move entirely to a socialistic based system. Once again, not impossible, but the Canadian model cannot be imported in whole.
-
"you want government to be in charge of health care, be ready to bend over and grab your ankles." There's the problem right there. It always comes back to that. So long as I'm working (which might not be for long if I keep posting in this TB instead of resourcing humans), I'll use my private health insurance when I go to the doctor. Plop down my $20 co-pay and away we go. But it would be reassuring to know that people who can't afford health insurance are able to see a doctor and receive medical care without going into bankruptcy. Look, I don't have all the answers, I have no idea where to statrt. All I know is I'm all about the human and doing whatever it takes to ensure we can all squeeze a drop or two of pleasure out of life. Members of Congress should not be given free healthcare when hard working people in their constituency are forced to live without it. There no place in society for that type of injustice. I'm an atheist for crying out loud and the amount of world suffering keeps me up at night while our born again monkey in charge is in bed by 9:00 and sleeps like a rock. I just don't understand how we can spend billions of dollars building infrastructure in Iraq when we're not taking care of our own first. We need to clean our own house before we head next door with the Dirt Devil. As soon as we have our own house in order, we can start spreading it to the rest of the world that ASKS for it.
-
Despite what many politicians in Canada say, the Canadian system is a public/private mix. The government handles the insurance for primary health care, the individual buys insurance for everything else (dental, non medically necessary surgery like a nose job, etc). There are private hospitals in Canada as well as public, but they are limited to day procedures. The E.U. which has roughly the same number of people as the US has no problem providing publicly funded primary health care to its citizens, so scale has nothing to do with it. Also in terms of training, just saying something is the best does not make it so. That is a qualitative statement, not quantitative statement. Morbidity rates for all major diseases are statistically identical between the US and Canada, so that is empirical evidence that, on average, Canadian trained physicians are equally well trained and skilled as US trained physicians.
-
That's the key. Taking the best of other systems and incorporating it with the best of our system. Whenever people like Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly argue the pros and cons of socialized versus privatized, they always fail to mention the counter points. I lived in Canada for 17 years and I never experienced any wait times, never saw a single bill. So based on my experience it's a perfect system. But I know otherwise. I have relatives who had to come to the U.S. for scans rather than wait sit on a waiting list for a few months. Likewise, I've been in the U.S. for 14 years now and although I've had money deducted out of every paycheck for premiums and have to drop a deuce for office visits, my experiences have been nothing short of perfect. So if someone was to go off just my experiences, both the Canadian and American medical systems are perfect. Moore needs to acknowledge the positive aspects here, Fox News types need to recognize the benefits in Canada and England.
-
You are truly comparing apples to oranges. Consider: While the morbidity for major diseases are generally in line, the United States has a far larger, and far more diverse population than does Canada. Which means that we also have a far greater range of economic disparities. Those disparities drive the rate of morbidity in a negative direction. Even so, we are still generally even with morbidity rates in Canada. Joint U.S. and Canadian studies have shown that when comparing lower income Canadians and Americans, the Canadians are more healthy. This means that when you factor in the huge numbers of lower income Americans that are unhealthy to start with, and adjust the rates of morbidity to account for that, the care provided in United States surpasses that of Canada. There is also the illegal immigrant care than places additional burdens on the United States, as well as some urban demographics that include drug and gang activity, which is far greater in the U.S. All of these depress the morbidity rates, but even so, we are still generally even. Further Empirical proof lies in the technology disparity between the countries. As more cutting edge medical practices are not only developed here, but implemented here. Far more Canadian doctors, and new medical students come south to pursue advanced degrees, and to practice than the reverse. The number of Physicians per capita is higher in the United States 2.4 vs 2.2 per 1000. The wait times in emergency rooms in Canada are staggering compared to the U.S. Specialty procedures also take longer - by special I mean procedures such as hip replacement surgery.
In short, to compare the two is not truly possible, and I am leaving out the E.U. because although they are a single economic entity, and they are moving in the diection of providing healthcare mobility, they are not there yet - and in fact are quite a ways off. Even so, it would be difficult - and probably unfair to the E.U. to compare with the United States in nothing more than population. because only a few countries within the E.U. could approach U.S. healthcare, but if you factor in those countries that are far short, it would serve to drag down the E.U. results. -
I love wearing a tin foil hat as much as the next conspiracy theorist but those "9/11 was an inside job" folks make my asshole pucker.
-
I made the comment about how the Iraq war spending was so small it couldn't make a big difference, but I was saying that in regards to the upcoming social security costs. Meaning, what we've spent on the Iraq war in total is roughly equal to what we spend on social security annually.
-
Pharmaceutical companies aren't ripping off Americans, it's the rest of the 1st World nations that are ripping off Americans. Pharma. companies operate in a radically different market than other businesses. This is because Pharma. comps. face enormous fixed costs (R&D, and pharma reps to educate/sweet-talk doctors) and tiny marginal costs (cost of producing each pill). Given that a pharma. comp. might spend years researching and developing in a certain vein, then that R&D might never lead to any drug, might lead to a drug equal or worse than existing ones, might lead to a drug way to expensive to market, or lead to a drug that the FDA won't approve (for example, causes serious negative side-effects in 1 in 10,000 people); it really isn't surprising that, on average, each successful new drug costs the comp. about $800 million to create, and usually less than 50 cents to produce per pill. So, when all of Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. have their government put price caps on what the pharma. products, the companies manufacture pills and sell them for just a little over that cost. America hasn't capped drug prices, so Big Pharma. has to make their R$D (the vast, vast majority of their costs) here, off American consumers. So, no, Big Pharma is not evil and ripping off Americans. We could place price caps on drugs... but then we shouldn't expect new drugs and treatments to appear but once every several years.
-
the majority of all new drugs and treatments originate in the US... and then the rest of the world refuses to accept R&D in the price of pills, and Big Pharma. takes what it can get from them.
-
Basically, Americans spend more on HC than any other nation because we consume way, way more HC than any other nation. The fundamental structure of the HC market is: patients pay insurance, insurance pays HC providers, providers provide HC to patients. This market is also very different from other markets because of the inherent uncertainty in it. In the 60s and 70s, most of the West followed a Fee-for-Service plan (Ins. pays provider for whatever service it provides for patient, this encouraged overconsumption). Since then, everyone has been moving towards a capitation system to control costs (Ins. pays provider X amount of money, and provider obligated to provide regardless of costs). Essentially, all the risk is being transferred from the Ins. to the provider. The capitation system led to the HMO's which are essentially the Ins. and provider combined (obviously, not so good for competition in either market).
-
I just spilled a glass of water on my desk and have to clean it up. the previous posts are part a greater explanation... so let me finish before mentioning that I'm over-simplifying everything.
-
The main reason HC costs have been rising steadily since the 60s is advances in technology. Right after WWII, we had antibiotics, starting in the past 20 yrs or so, we've introduced long-term specialized drugs such as Lipitor, anti-depressants, etc. Furthermore, all of medicine has been becoming more and more advanced. For example, think of the increasing number and sophistication of devices patients undergoing surgery get hooked up to present day versus 15 years ago. This is why HC costs in nationalized European systems are still rising a lot despite attempts at price controls. Now, the US spends 15-20% of GDP on HC costs vs. the 10-15% of Europe for example. But this is not necessarily an indicator that our system is inherently less efficient, but rather, it indicates we consume more HC than them (current tax and Ins. system encourages over-consumption). As far as international comparisons go... trusting those comparisons require a lot on assumptions. First, the nations share similar definitions (we don't, infant mortality is a good example of that). Second, the people running the numbers are able to actually to account for the disparities between nations [I've actually tried to do this and it is fucking next to impossible; how the hell do you discount American obesity and diabetes rates (which complicates and increases the costs of every other facet of HC) against other nations?].
-
Lots of good points. Thanks for taking the time to throw it out there. Like I said, I don't have all the answers. It just pains me to know some of my fellow countrymen are having to choose between paying the rent and having that lump looked at. Since you brought up obesity I could go on a rant about that and we'd have what, the 20th topic change in this TB so far?
-
I'm assuming Obama is getting the nomination so when I refer to the "UHC plan" I'm talking about his; and I'm not going into the specifics of it. All I'm going to say is... the best way to put him on the spot in a debate would be to ask him to promise that he would not raise taxes on the "rich" (ie 200k or 250k a year crowd) to fund his Universal UHC plan, he would be at a total loss for words. Putting aside that every fed. gov. program ever sucks up more and more money... his plan seems to face an insurance death spiral (not making that term up, ask anyone in the biz). The facts are: the large majority of the uninsured are young, healthy individuals who can afford to buy HC but choose not to, and illegal immigrants. If those two groups are discounted... you wind up with about 4% of the population (the same population that over-consumes HC) without HC that can walk into any ER at anytime and get free HC. I don't see how that's not a HC crisis. Now, Obama's plan is to us the federal gov. to correct the market by offering tax-payer funded HC for the uninsured... for a price. Now, this sets up the scenario that forms the definition of adverse selection. Healthy people will game the system and not join until they get older... meaning only those who believe they face serious health risks will join. The HC insurance model is based off having a large enough pool of risk-adverse healthy and those who have a serious chance of becoming unhealthy (the sickly). I still don't understand how Obama's UHC plan's pools will include enough of the people in their 20s who choose not to buy HC insurance to offset the sickly people who do sign up for it. This means insurance death spiral: no healthy people signed up whose payments offset the costs of the sickly... so premiums rise and push even more low risk people out... ending in a largely sickly pool of people and prohibitively expensive costs (or, this is what would happen in a private market, if the gov. provides ins, this means all our taxes are getting raised by a shitload).
-
Yeah, last night I said I would give some basic, economic rundowns of the American Health Care system. I also said I would provide a basic-rundown of Social Security... if chuckmc asks me to I will, but I'm hoping he quit checking this TB (that summary would take a while). But essentially, unless America enacts reforms we're looking over 20% of our paycheck being deducted as opposed to the 12.5% now.
-
I'm sick of writing about this stuff. I know I said I would give actual economic summaries of multiple situations currently facing the US, and I will, but someone has to ask me to specifically do it. But, just so you know, this ain't interesting internet exchanges for me, this is me taking time off from developing models and writing 15 page plus papers about the exact same shit to write online about the exact same shit.
-
to my Universal HC posting about the parenthesis about those truly lacking the means to afford HC, I meant that it is just a very small percent of the HC-over-consuming US population that can still get free HC in any ER, and I don't see how that is a HC crisis in comparison to European HC systems.
-
I don't agree that we are comparing apples to oranges because we are talking about what system services its citizens, on average, the best. While it is true there is a greater economic disparity in the US than in Canada, the US poor tending to be poorer than the poor in Canada, you have to include them because they are part of the society. The study I have in front of me, "A systematic review of studies comparing health
outcomes in Canada and the United States" by Gordon H. Guyatt et al, looks at morbidity rates for patients in the system, so does not take into account morbidity rates for those individuals in the US that cannot afford health care and are not poor enough to get free health care so they fall through the cracks. Doing a statistical analysis of 38 studies done in both Canada and the US, it concludes "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." According to the study, at worst outcomes are statistically the same between Canada and the US, at best they are superior in Canada compared to the US. If you factored in all the people in the US that are not eligible to get health care, then that would skew the numbers even more in Canada's favor. The argument that "we have more poor than you" or "we have more obesity than you" is not a cogent excuse for comparing the effectiveness of health care systems. Wait times are longer in Canada than in the US, but that is because medical resources are allocated based on need instead of ability to pay. Those people in the US who cannot afford health care have an effective infinite wait time. Part of the problem with for profit health care is that there is little financial incentive for prevention, lots for treatment. I have also read that the US is a larger consumer of health care than Canada, but that is because American patients tend to enter the system later when more intensive health care is required to treat the disease relative to Canada. Why? Because ability to pay is a barrier. But I think it is also a valid point that you can get bogged down in the details, so in the same way that GDP per capita is a rough approximation for standard of living between nations, life expectancy serves as a rough approximation for the effectiveness of a nations health care system. According to the list of countries by life expectancy on wikipedia, American has the 45th highest life expectancy in the world, behind Canada, most of Europe and the EU average. -
I'm still waiting. Hows the hangover?
-
I am a self made millionaire off of the stock markets semi retired at 39, so I got lots of time to do whatever the hell I want. Working for a living is for suckers!
-
Little to no hangover (I only had four fingers of Makers Mark over 2 hours last night). And, assuming what you said it true... you know that the Dems want to raise the capital gains tax right? In the same vein, congratulations on you're success. I'm a senior in a college that's basically a farm turning out fresh crops of iBankers, hedge fund "billy-badasses", and med-school students... and out of all the guys I know who went to Wall Street... only one still works there. None of them are over 25, and several made millions... then decided they wanted to be professors (which provided all the evidence necessary to scare me off that path).
-
I remember what its like when I was in University, not always an easy way to live. I have a B.Sc in Biology and a B.Sc. in Computer Science so I never worked on Wall Street, my investment knowledge is entirely self taught, mostly from following Buffett. Life is what you make it. I have no opinion on the Dems plans, and even Buffett is complaining that the wealthy in the US don't pay enough tax. I don't mind paying tax, as long as it is a fair amount and the gov is not pissing it away too egregiously.
I am more upset by high corporate taxes than high personal taxes. -
As yet another total tangent, The Economist recently had an article on Hedge Funds and Mutual Funds. Because of the sizable fees they charge they, on average, under perform the S&P 500. Since they tend to report their results before the management fees are removed, they tend to look like much better performers than they actually are. The fund managers make a killing, but the investors in the funds, on average, under perform the index. I learned along time ago that you are better off buying the stock of the fund company then buying any of their funds. Its the difference between owning a piece of the casino and going into the casino and gambling. As another aside, I loved how Jim Cramer (Mad Money) told a caller not to unload all his Bear Stern at around $30 and then a week later it hit $2 bucks. No one is an oracle.
-
No, I agree about hedge funds. (Just assume I have money for a second) I view giving money to hedge funds as similar to gambling. But, that 2 and 20 percent those managers enjoy is pretty sweet (and it still is despite all the entries to the market). I am about to receive a diploma in Economics (that I earned in 4 semesters... took me a while to settle on a concentration) from one of the most prestigious schools in the world: and raising the capital gains tax (and top income tax bracket) is stupid, it will achieve lower tax revenue and only satisfy rabid, class-warfare leftists. Also, while I truly respect Buffett, his whole "I pay less in taxes than my secretary" routine is bullshit. He chooses how he is compensated and he chose capital gains (a 15% tax rate). One minute from now he could choose to be paid a salary and face at least twice the tax rate his secretary pays (and he only pays her 60 grand a year, the cheap bastard). Capital gains taxes shouldn't be raised because they incorporate an inherit risk that would offset further investment (this is very easily proved, and economists constantly do it when the cap. gains tax is messed with). For example, some of the top 10 most respected economists in the world don't believe there should be a capital gains tax, to encourage investment (hardly any economists debate the long term growth models, and investment translates to higher future consumption in them).
-
I should mention that the top 1% of income earners pay just over a third of all income taxes. The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of income taxes. And, using wage as the scale, the bottom half on wage earners totals 60 million people in our nation of over 300 million people. Don't believe the class warfare bullshit.
-
My name isn't "Steve Grant." But when you call me that, you are not only disrespecting the Larry Sanders Show, you are disrespecting Bob Odenkirk's excellent work as Larry Sander's amoral, coke-head agent, "Stevie Grant."
-
Ah, I see you picked up on that. It's a subtle dig for you calling me GiLL earlier. No disrespect to GiLL, I have total respect for people who travel abroad to experience new cultures. I agree with you on the capitol gains tax, but I think Buffett's point is that he is going to pay the minimal tax the system allows for, so the system should plug the hole to gain more tax off of the people who can afford to pay it the most. I do the same thing. One of the greatest barriers to wealth creation is taxes, but once you have it give something back. For me, back to rocking out with my cock out on Rockband with my buddies over the net and a Bourbon on the rocks.
-
The "GiLL" title was unintentional. And, you could make a billion dollars tomorrow, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference in "average working man/women" life. Modern Liberalism is for parasites and those wealthy enough to avoid every tax they can but vote Democrat in order to feel good about themselves (this isn't partisanship talking, I'm a Libertarian, I don't like Republicans either). Buffet is full of shit on that point (he pimped himself out for Hillary, and it is hardly out of the ordinary for Clinton pimps to 'suddenly' make shitloads of money).
-
I'm a libertarian as well, but I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I believe Buffett has announced he supports Obama, not Clinton. While I may make a Billion tomorrow, if I kick back a chunk of that to the society that provided me the opportunity to make that, then I can help those who may not have the kind of opportunities that I had so that they can be a net contributer to society instead of a net deficit. My wife teaches at a public high school that averages 5 students accepted a year to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford. Everyone should have access to a public school with the same level of education as the one she teaches at.
-
I should clarify my position on capitol gains. I am pro capitol gains exemption, but I do not think capitol gains should be tax free. A capitol gains tax is a disincentive to sell, not to invest. It punishes you for the volume of profit taking, but not for the initial investment. As you say, the wealthiest 1% pay one third of all income tax collected. They can probably afford to make that one half. We have to scale the taxes across the board to be fair across all spectrum's of income earned, not just employment income. I do not like Gucci Liberals either, but there is a difference between taxing those who are attempting increase their lot in life and those who have already made it.
-
Whoops, I meant capital gains. Damn javascript spell checker, I definitely do not have a B.A. in English...
-
you guys are still at it over here, huh? You all deserve a fucking medal. This is the craziest, smartest, looniest and most interesting talkback I've ever seen.
-
About the capital gains tax, the lower it is the better for the economy. Now, this is true for all taxes and the debate is about what level of trade-off is efficient or fair. I believe in very low capital gains taxes because 1) investment is vital and should be enouraged 2) the is a very large, inherent risk to investing whose effect depends on individuals risk-adversion and the risks he or she believes they face. Now, raising the cap gains tax by 10-15% will be devastating to the struggling, increasingly important, financial sector of the economy. Also, the tax stats I was throwing out dealt with the income tax, not the cap gains tax (most of the "loopholes" in our taxcode were created to direct money from the wealthy or money-managers into specific areas of the economy, it achieves the same goals as taxation and subsidies minus the market distortions and dead weight loss).
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 142 total posts 131 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 465 total posts 126 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 124 total posts 124 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 69 total posts 68 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 60 total posts 60 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 111 total posts 46 posts
- AICN Legends: Quint talks with Paul Reubens about all things Pee-Wee! Including the 3 (!!!) Pee-Wee movies in development! -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 88 total posts 37 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 174 total posts 33 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 83 total posts 32 posts