Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

You have it all wrong as usual.

This was the US position on launching military adventures 60 years ago. It was not conditional to regime, geography or climate. It was as general a statement as it is possible to do. King George's position is 180° in the other direction. His main tool of foreign policy is war.

Indeed, do not waste time answering this Valachus. You can't.

I wonder if you would still keep laughing if the Chinese invaded the tyranical Saudi Arabia and set up their own regime and oil field control. I predict you would have some difficulties to criticize them for behaving the same way as you do

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 03, 2005 09:28 am

Yes, Chandernagore, whatever you say. The German invasions of WWII and USA's involvement in Irak both rest on the same reasons.

No. They both rest on same idea that consider war among the best options to forward your national interests.

But I see that you still twist and spin and twist again. Show must go on...

First I want to know if the prisoner was fucked with a broomstick in order to tell what the interrogator wanted to hear.

Because torturers don't have any credibility left in Europe and democratic/liberal America (while they are apparently allowed to thrive in Jesusland).

Let me help you :

''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East."

Jay Garner

Curiously not a word about democracy...

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 03, 2005 12:05 pm

While I'm at it, let's go with another eye opener, for the greatest benefit of our two beloved neocon cheerleaders : Mabadesc & Valachus. Enjoy the simple truth hidden in the sea of lies.

"And let's never forget this administration's real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998 when they urged President Clinton and members of Congress to take down Saddam "to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities," and a Saddam/al-Qaida link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before Bush and his cronies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they already had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.

This is still the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the election, as heartwarming as it was, doesn't change any of that."

Arianna Huffington

Arianna Huffington is an antipatriot and America basher and ought perhaps to be gang raped according to Dick Cheney's burgeoning ideas on home defense.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 03, 2005 05:39 pm

There isn't anything terribly wrong with torture. Look at Rumsfeld shaking hands with his new friend Islam Karimov, recently nicknamed "the boiler" after a forensic report gave away that political prisoners are boiled to death in this respectable dictature sometimes called the "torturocracy". Perhaps a trip whose object is partly the "torture by proxy" program.

http://img209.exs.cx/img209/9859/chummyrummy8vn.jpg

Extract from "Muslim Uzbekistan"

According to a number of leading human rights watchdog groups, those typically accused of "anti-State activity," "subterfuge," "infringing upon the constitutional order" and "excessive [Muslim] piety" in Uzbekistan are habitually subjected to beatings, electric shock, asphyxiation in boiling water, rape, fingernail extraction, burnings with cigarettes and lit newspapers, and "disappearance".

Full article

However Uzbekistan is a safe dictatorship. Rummy does not invade friends or advocate free elections in proxy client states with no oil. Any discrepancies with neocon policies versus another dictatorship not far away are purely fortuitous.

Okay. Who's going to jump forward to defend Rumsfeld and his new buddy Karimov ? Any takers ? Mabadesc, perhaps ?

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 04, 2005 09:08 am

Silence is worth gold sometimes

In figures released by the election commission Friday, 4th of February, more than two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted so far went to the United Iraqi Alliance, which is endorsed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric. The faction headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite, trailed with about 18 percent - or more than 579,700 votes.

Several key figures on the Shiite ticket spent years in exile in Iran. Al-Sistani himself is Iranian-born although he has lived most of his life in Iraq.
The best is yet to come...

This post has been edited by Florin on February 05, 2005 06:58 pm

Score 2 for Iran. What they didn't manage to do during war - 80/88 - (set up a friendly regime in Baghdad) , they are now well on the path to achieve by non violent means.

This neocon admin has no clue what it is doing in the middle east. Focused on their own agenda and blind to the world.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 06, 2005 11:30 am

Perhaps a trip to set up a "torture by proxy" program... or not! Maybe, just maybe, a former soviet country that's willing to allow American military presence on its territory is a country worth at least a courtesy visit from the USA Defense secretary.
With regards for the "torture" thing, hehe... you know, what goes around, comes around. Who are us to question some peaceful country's traditions and culture, I ask you. Or, in your words:

Moreover, there's the slight problem that you and your ideological comrades sure had absolutely nothing against torture and genocide in Iraq, as far as I can remember. You expressed hate and anger when Baathist Iraq was put under a weapons embargo. Nor do you have anything against it in Saudi Arabia - "it's a culture thing, you know". Or China. Or Russia. Nor did you have anything against it in the former european communist countries.

So I can't really understand what's your beef with torturing arrested islamic terrorists in the Western countries - they'd be treated the way any criminal is treated in their native countries and "cultures"! In fact, this would truly be a form of respect for the terrorists and their "culture".

In fact, as far as I'm concerned, exerting physical duress on people who had participated/were going to participate in, or have knowledge of terrorist acts, is absolutely OK if it helps saving even a single civilian that would have been killed, maimed or otherwise harmed. And under the same circumstances I think I can safely go as far as saying that even the killing of people with terror-related activities is, both morally and legally, quite admissible. If all over the world the police are allowed to shoot and kill criminals much less dangerous than mass-murdering terrorists, why shouldn't it be excusable if so it happens that terrorists die in the course of investigative legal procedures?

This post has been edited by valachus on February 06, 2005 12:18 pm

That tells me something about you. Your morale code should not be determined by the behaviour of your enemy but by your own values if you have any.

Your soul is cynical and your statements are disgusting. If the whole edifice is as rotten as you are perhaps the Axis of evil needs to be redrawn.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 06, 2005 09:22 pm

That tells me something about you. Your morale code should not be determined by the behaviour of your enemy but by your own values if you have any.

Your soul is cynical and your statements are disgusting. If the whole edifice is as rotten as you are perhaps the Axis of evil needs to be redrawn.

I'm sure any amputee crippled by a terror attack or any orphan left without parents because they were killed for simply "being there" and for the sake of killing, would share your compassionate and noble weltanschauung. How rotten of me to wish that anything possible is done to protect the innocent and to tackle the vicious before they do any harm. Now, you sure are entitled to take my stance and example and make it a motivational story at the jihadi educational club or "progressive" discussion group nearest to you. So go ahead, make my day. Buddy.

Sincerest regards,

valachus

With a little torture, perhaps ?

US innocents are worth 10 times other innocents apparently

Unfortunately there isn't anything possible to do in Irak regarding 9/11 for the two objects are completely unrelated. In Irak, there are only business and geopolitical interests.

But, well I'm sure it doesn't bother you as long as there is some torture opportunity to make your day.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 07, 2005 12:29 am

Avoid insulting personal remarks.

I do my best but I think we stumbled on an Abu Graib supporter who obviously believes that there wasn't any "bad apples" there, just day after day ordinary stuff.