Bobak said:Well, from what I've been reading (not really in too much depth) over the days since the mutilation killings, the basic sequence of events was:
- 4 private security people killed (the mutilations)
- US decides during the televised mutilations to not intervene (or else provoke a very large and angry mob)
- The US decides to close off Fallujah until it can marshall the forces to go in and bring in those responisible (cutting the city off from everything)
- The US goes into Fallujah in a major way, hoping to get those responsible for the mutilation-killings. This is resulting in large casualities on both sides because the Sunni Iraqis in Fallujah are pissed and its likely house-to-house fighting (that and they likely had 24 hours alone while the city was closed off to plant bombs and things for the US forces)
- Meanwhile, there's another very large problem brewing in the Shiite areas (remember, Fallujah is a part of the 'Sunni Triangle', they're the rival sect to the Shiite and enemies). Now the US is facing two very different pockets of unrest. The quick chronology to that problem is (1) last week US closes down radical Shiite newspaper, sparking massive protests, (2) US arrests some lieutenants of a radical mullah, sparking actual riots (3) the riots are getting even more intense and wide spread as the US issues an arrest warrent for this mullah -now its no longer about his adherents, but regular Iraqis who think he's a symbol of US oppression of Iraqi faith, culture, and leaders (yes, it doesn't make total sense, but it was inevitable in an undereducated society).
Good times, good times all around. Still, the US has been wise to make sure to keep those two sides away from each other, otherwise they'd probably spark a civil war that would destroy all the new stuff you, the American tax-payer, have paid to put in.
Tom Wopat said:It seems that Iraq was much more at a state of peace back then compared to now.
galfordo said:Yeah, they probably were. Of course it took occasional mass murder, the eradication of any semblance of freedom or opinion, and the occasional unruly customer being thrown into a wood chipper while still alive - but you know, that's no big deal I guess. As long as we could maintain that kind of "peace", I guess it makes no difference to some people .
Tom Wopat said:
I blame the media. They atleast created the illusion of a "peaceful" state. As long as an American isn't involved, it's not worth reporting.
(Sort of unrelated)
The Taliban destroyed priceless statues of Buddha. Do we hear much on such an outrage? No. But once word gets out that bin Laden MAY be over there, we get 24 hours of Geraldo coverage.
galfordo said:....If the "evil and oppressive" US isn't getting black eyes somewhere, don't expect the news teams to report it.
Spoonman said:Could it be? a "bleeding heart" conservative?!
Holy shit....I've seen it all, now.
Tom Wopat said:(And to think, when this war began, I had some conservative views and was all like "Yeah, fuck Saddam! He's the weapon!". Shit. It seems that Iraq was much more at a state of peace back then compared to now. I still wanna get a copy of the book he wrote.)
Mercenary X99 said:..."You already know what I'd say within my post so I'll just let the pics speak for me."
galfordo said:I'm not sure what about that makes me a bleeding heart - but calling me that in a general sense is definitely a bit of a stretch. I'm just shitting on the media dude, dont call Guiness just yet
Spoonman said:Just goofin' around....Just think its funny you see the media as some yelping human rights watchdog... whinning whenever America does something "questionable"
For the longest time I thought the exact opposite, I saw a faithful bitch in the media....at America's beck and call....willing to put the US in a positive light, no matter what....
Shitting on the media is good though....not as good as shitting on Hollywood but...eh....I'll keep that Guiness number handy anyway.
Check this article and tell me why no one votes for Buchannan...
BoriquaSNK said:While I agree completely with his views in the article, Pat Buchanon is a certified, grade-A, 110% active racist bastard. The man wrote a book about how immigration was "destroying" american culture. He is also an outspoken opponent of inter-racial and gay marriage (like that wasn't expected). He truly is an evil, horrible man.
No registered republican wants to denounce the war so close to election day. Otherwise, I'm sure McCain would have a soap box out by now.
Spoonman said:Haha...holy shit....perhaps his choosing of an African American woman for VP was just a publicity stunt then....
Bobak said:Regardless whether he's racist or not, yes, it most definitely was a publicity stunt.
Remember the progression?
- Gore chooses Lieberman, the first Jew on a major ticket
- Buchanon chooses... that one woman who's name I forgot, which he proudly announced to be the first African American VP candidate on a major ticket
- Nader pickes LaDuke, the first Native American Woman to be on a ticket
- Bush picks Dick Cheney, a big fat white guy with a heart condition.
LOL! Whew, there's a real good joke just waiting to be made