COUNTDOWN TO WAR

[mburbank]

Commercial airlines are being pressed into military service to transport troops as the Pentagon continues its Persian Gulf buildup for a possible war in Iraq.

This has only happened once before. Right before Desert Storm.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

Yeah, and tv networks are worried about losing money on advertising in the event of war.

[mburbank]

Economic impact is economic impact.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

War is Hell.

[mburbank]

Hell is for Children
-Pat Benatar

[MrAdventure]

Stop using sex as a weapon.
-Pat Benatar

[mburbank]

Excuse me, have you seen my career?
-Pat Benatar.

[MrAdventure]

I've been taking my daughter to all the county fairs but she is unfortunately not talented enough to get her band "Glow" off the ground, though we try and blame it on her fat friend.
-Pat Benatar

[Helm]

My father is in Iraq right now for journalism-related reasons. If you kill my father I'm gonna be pretty upset, and not even Jerseyboy like beatdowns aren't going to help.

[ranxer]

twenty bucks says we're not going to war >:

we simply can't afford it unless we get more allies in the game to foot the bill.

yea it looks bad, but im still thinking its not going to happen.

[mew barios]

i'll take that bet. :/

[george]

helm, i honestly hope nothing bad happens to your father.

as for the rest of you, as far as money goes, a nice war does wonders for the economy. the government has to spend all that money they rape us for. people get good jobs doing all sorts of stuff. the airlines make money off the wartime use (i believe the government has to actually pay two or three times what just chartering the flights would be worth).

ww1 dumped money into this country
ww2 same
vietnam same
gulf war, a whole lot of the same

we will profit off this war.

not to mention all the oil we get from the new 51st state.

[AChimp]

The Good Guys never die in war anymore, especially when we just fire missiles from a thousand miles away, so I don't see why they bother showing families all snivelling and crying over the fact that Daddy is going away to fight for six months. It's not like he's ever going to have to face any Iraqis one-on-one. :rolleyes

If anything, they should be pissed off that Daddy gets to go on vacation on big cruise ships complete with almost every luxury, including full court gyms and a McDonalds. :(

[sadie]

10.

[mburbank]

Ranxer; I disagree strongly, not for any reason of logic. I think Bush is personlly committed to this war and it's going to happen come hell or high water. The only thing that has any chance of stopping it is Saddam going into exile or getting killed.

I think it goes beyond 'security', and I think the left's idea that it's about oil and control miss the point as well. A lot of Bush the elder's foreign policy boiled down to his irritation at what was called the 'wimp' factor. Speedboating in high seas, 'prk rinds' and going to war with Iraq were part and parcell of his life long struggle to be seen as a 'man'.

Simmilarly, deep in his gut, our current Bush suffers with having been seen as the family dolt his whole life. He was never taken seriously by his father, Jeb was the one being groomed for political dynasty. Now Bush Jr. is President and he's damn well going to finish what Daddy started and show him good by outmaning him.

[george]

just wait until we invade canada. all we will need is a shitload of labatts and some pumpkins.

it sure will save us some money on all those missiles we had to build to keep your country safe.

[ranxer]

war is good for the economy Invest Your Children!

im talking about the COST of the war, you know they have to fill the tanks with jeeps and pay for the missles right? for example Gulf war 1 cost around $61 Billion, i dont know how much we made on the deal, but we only paid about 1/3 of the cost ourselves, the rest came from gw1 "supporters" without which the war would not have happened.

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Horan/gulf/GW_cost/NonUS_GW_gifts.gif[/img]

[george]

ok, here is where you are getting fuzzy about weapons procurement.

everything we use in this war is already paid for. some of it is older than most of the people who frequent these boards. the 61 billion price tag is for replacement parts.

and for service related items, such as food, fuel, lodging. all of which dump shitloads of money into the economy.

and in case you are blind and stupid, the whole US economy is nothing but pure consuming. the more we consume the better the economy. the more the government blows on weapons and such, the more the economy grows. :(

we can more than afford it cause the spending will just create more money in the tax base.

[ranxer]

i can agree with most of that but it still costs to move a destroyer or fire a missle, or replace the parts.. the 61billion didnt exactly pay us back directly, no matter how you break it down.

and i'm talking about issues that arent going to be in the news.. this is info that they don't want us to know about..(i havnt seen ANYONE bring these issues up anywhere) your welcome to call me whatever but without help paying for the war we cant afford it.

Granted our government will sieze plenty of oil(illegally) to offset the cost, but that's only after a move on iraq And it's a gamble that we could recoup some of our losses. If the war doesnt go well.. ie the iraqis kill more americans than our freindly fire, or a nuke is dropped(oh man i hope not!!) it could cost alot more than 61billion. IF we go to war i really hope it goes better than gw1 but i don't think it will.

[george]

i can not begin to tell you how much i do not want this war to happen.

aside from all my moral concerns, i have family members who would be put into the machine. also, i really think that liberating a people who obviously have not tried to liberate theirselves is a very bad idea.

[sadie]

9.

[Ronnie Raygun]

I bet we go in to Iraq one week from today.

[george]

i always find it odd that i agree with you, even when we are coming at the same idea from different directions.

[Protoclown]

8?

[mburbank]

Yeah, I just came back from lunch.


GET IT?!

See, Sadie started counting down to war (as the thread title commanded), proto joined in, and then I made a joke about Proto's number being confused with the past tense of 'eat', which is ridiculous, becuase that mistake can only be made when you only hear someone say 8, not when you read it.

What's really funny is that lot of people are going to die soon, the world will be plunged into chaos and I have two children for whom the future looks bleak at best and yet I still find the spunk to make a useless joke based on the way words can sometimes sound the same as a word with a totally different meaning.

THAT's COMEDY!!!

[george]

i was once told that all comedy is pain, and that is why there are so many jew and black comedians.

[GAsux]

"...for example Gulf war 1 cost around $61 Billion".

War in Iraq will cost lots of money. Point conceded.

But lets be realistic here. Any idea how much a decade of containment has cost? Do you have any idea how much has been invested in the region just in infastructure alone? There are a dozen bases in the region that were little more than a concrete slab in the middle of the desert by the end of Gulf War I. They are now some of the largest bed down facilities in the region. Guess where that money came from.

Any idea how many troops/tanks/bombs/etc have been rotated in and out of the region since 1991? Every 90-120 rotation costs shitloads of money. We're spending money every single day. IN no-fly zones, in intelligence assetts, in satellite technology, etc.

We've been pouring billions into Iraq every single year with no end in sight. Pay now, or pay later.

[FS]

We're nearly halfway through February. I'm pretty sure that either at the end of this week or sometime during the next one, "ground-breaking evidence" will pop up and an attack will be launched before there's time to properly investigate it.

[GAsux]

Well you've set yourself up quite nicely. What amazing forsight you have Miss Cleo.

Anyway, what does it matter? We bitch that there is no evidence, but at the same time dismiss any evidence presented anyway. So what's the point. Is there honestly any evidence that could be provided short of videos of Saddam lighting bomb fuses himself that would convince you?

You'll right off any forthcoming "evidence" as propaghanda regardless so why make bland predictions?

[FS]

I was just illustrating my complete loss of trust in the Bush administration. Not trying to set myself up for an "I WAS RIGHT" next week.

And with loss of trust comes loss of credibility. No, I won't believe any evidence now presented by the American government because it's too damn late. The war's been brewing for months. The only thing that could possibly convince me that Saddam is currently still producing biological weapons would be a call from the weapons inspectors, but we all know how effective they are.

[ranxer]

War is Not a Solution no matter what kind of evidence they have.
Working closely with Allies that dont have thier arms twisted behind thier back by corporate corrupted scum of the earth like we have running this administration would be ok with me.

Fascism is rolling over the peaceful, the democratic, the powerless.

War IS Terrorism and our corporate Fascists are drooling over making a mess over there.. trigger happy gw makes me sick.

the two main differences between Saddam and GW are PR and taxes.

[mburbank]

Evidence or lack thereof only matters to the administration PR machine. This war has been a forgone conclusion for a very long time.


If you're counting pennies, add to the cost of the ar the cost of the occupation, rebuilding their infrastructrure including their oil industry and running the country. A pentagon spokeperson yesterday guessed occuption time at a minimum of two years. I'm think he underestimated by, maybe, forever.

[sadie]

7!


p.s. max: :lol

[mburbank]

DAMN IT SADIE! YOU ARE GOING TO START A WAR!!!!!

[Ronnie Raygun]

Raxner,

"War is Not a Solution no matter what kind of evidence they have."

HAHAHA!

Do the rest of you realize how pathetic this is?

Does that apply to every war or just this one?

[mburbank]

Maybe incorrect, but certainly not pathetic. Like a lot of extreme answers, I think it fits in the "What Would Jesus Do" category.

I think War is the very last answer, almost never right, almost always avoidable. And don't give me your sad WWII story. Suppose at the moment Hitler rose to power he'd been isolated by the rest of the world, suppose every effort had been made to help Jews, Gypsies and Poles escape, suppose Money had been funelled to oposition groups.

Some wars may indeed be unavoidable, but they are ALL signs of moral failure, regardless of how blame is appportioned they ALL involve brutality, murder and destruction from all participants.

It's not a football game Naldo. It's very serious business full of suffering. Take off your foam USA #1 hand, scrub the greasepaint off your face and concider seriously the souls that will be exyinguished witgh your tax money. The souls that may be saved doesn't mitigate this fact, necessity doesn't mitigate this fact, as Pilot surely learned there is no way to wash the blood off your hands. That's what War does, it taints the innocent and the guilty alike. Everyone has a right to come to their own conclusions about if this war or any war needs to be or not. No one has a right to be cavalier about it.

[ranxer]

ronnie: Does that apply to every war or just this one?

i think mburbank answered more calmly than i can.

women and children will be killed by our effort to "liberate iraq"
thats our flag being drenched in blood for the lie that its for the iraqis, or against terrorism(whatever they're both lies).. not only will they be killed, but the aftermath of vaporized depleted uranium is very similar to nuclear fallout that could be considered a genocidal attack on who ever might be attempting to survive in the region.

This war will reduce security in america.. will create more people with intent to do damage to our country and risk our entire economy. Sure the press will show something other than that, but its just pr not the truth.

Ill be a broken record on this for ill say again, if we really wanted to reduce terrorism we would stop selling weapons of mass destruction. We would not be the worlds #1 profiteer of Depleted Uranium weapons. We would reduce the power of our business to take advantage of non-democratic slave labors to make a buck. if we really cared about reducing terrorism we would address the injustice in the world with something other than the barrel of a gun. Granted many are trying, but most of Corporate America is resisting granting democratic rights to all every step of the way.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"women and children will be killed by our effort to "liberate iraq""

They are being killed as we speak.

"thats our flag being drenched in blood for the lie that its for the iraqis, or against terrorism(whatever they're both lies).."

Admit it. You just don't like Bush....you know Conservatism is winning....you're just playing a game....and losing and you can't stand it. We are only upholding a U.N. resolution....in fact 17 resolutions over a 12 years period all of which have been broken by Saddam. There is no other answer. You say give peace a chance...we have....you said Bush should go to the U.N......he did...Now you are saying that Saddam should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Your credibility sucks.

"not only will they be killed, but the aftermath of vaporized depleted uranium is very similar to nuclear fallout that could be considered a genocidal attack on who ever might be attempting to survive in the region."

What the hell are you talking about? "Vaporized depleted uranium"?

"This war will reduce security in america.. will create more people with intent to do damage to our country and risk our entire economy."

False. The terrorists are doing all they can to destroy us now. They must be stopped and that's what we are doing. As long as we keep doing what we are doing we will win.

"Sure the press will show something other than that, but its just pr not the truth."

Yes! YOU have all the answers.

"Ill be a broken record on this for ill say again, if we really wanted to reduce terrorism we would stop selling weapons of mass destruction. We would not be the worlds #1 profiteer of Depleted Uranium weapons."

Give examples.

"We would reduce the power of our business to take advantage of non-democratic slave labors to make a buck."

What does that have to do with terrorism?

"if we really cared about reducing terrorism we would address the injustice in the world with something other than the barrel of a gun."

So we should have tried to reason with Al Queada? War in Afghanistan was wrong? PLEASE ANSWER!

"Granted many are trying, but most of Corporate America is resisting granting democratic rights to all every step of the way."

Are you ready!

.....Corporate America helps provide the American dream to the masses.

[mburbank]

Naldo; Damn good thing you adressed all your irate posturing elsewhere because this is certainly not a game to me. It obviously is to you, as you frequently assert conservatives are 'winning'.

This is life. There is no damn 'winning'. "winning" is for checkers, horse races, message boards and your hideously simplified religious lense where heaven is a prize.

[Vibecrewangel]

Thank you Max.

[mburbank]

Vibe likes me. I win. HAH!

[ItalianStereotype]

meh. :/

[Crimson Ghost]

I'll see you all in hell.

[ranxer]

Ronnie: ....you said Bush should go to the U.N......he did...Now you are saying that Saddam should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Your credibility sucks.

i didnt say that bush should threaten the U.N. i said he should work with the U.N.
Develop Nuclear weapons!? that's quite a stretch.. We have Nukes and Nukes and More Nukes.. Saddam cant make much of a move without us burning him out in a heartbeat.. let the U.N. Ask for help why do we have to pressure the U.N. to move on saddam? its because our corporate regime wants more bases and more power over the oil.. control of the middle east oil is key to the New World Order.. and thats the NWO that GW has talked about.

"women and children will be killed by our effort to "liberate iraq""

Ronnie: They are being killed as we speak.

so we should go ahead and accept collateral damage to "liberate" these folks you say are being killed? I dont agree. War is Terrorism and i dont agree that it will stop the killing of women and children.

Ronnie: Admit it. You just don't like Bush....you know Conservatism is winning....you're just playing a game....and losing and you can't stand it. We are only upholding a U.N. resolution....in fact 17 resolutions over a 12 years period all of which have been broken by Saddam.

no way bud, my feelings about bush are irrelevant. I call a criminal a criminal i dont care what family history he/she has. I'm reacting to actions and stated intentions. I even think many "conservatives" agree that bush has gone too far. I'd like to stay on the issues even though i stray quite a bit. Bush has used religion as a tool(dead baby political football), patriotism as a tool(nationalistic rhetoric from a chickenhawk!), and fear as a tool(9-11 worked very well for him).

Ronnie: What the hell are you talking about? "Vaporized depleted uranium"?

our "secret weapon" in gw1 was shells tipped with depleted uranium that upon contact with armor or rock or sand the depleted uranium(thats what we're doing with a lot of our nuclear waste) cuts through rock, armor etc and vaporizes creating a toxic waste puff that is similar to nuclear fallout. I've heard that we are selling more of this stuff than any other country but ill admit that i'm having trouble finding a lot on who exactly is profiting from it.. our government is selling to some eu countries and a spinoff company from honeywell "alliant"(?) is making them.. France seems to be doing a lot of the shell preparation.. they are pretty darn good at doing the wrong thing with nuclear waste.. i dont understand why they are buying from us when they have more plants over there but this stuff is anti-life in general leaving toxic wastelands where they use it.. worse than land mines. here's a link: http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm0196.04.html
here's a vid: http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/rokkethree28.ram


"We would reduce the power of our business to take advantage of non-democratic slave labors to make a buck."

Ronnie: What does that have to do with terrorism?

Corporate injustice leads to folks organizing labor unions and resistance, but since our companies are located in third world countries where the people have no rights thier union organizers get Killed.. do the corporations give the worker rights? No. Do they get brought up on charges for being complicit in killing union organizers? No. so if there is no lawful justice available what is left for these peoples struggles to turn to? its like putting a racoon in a bag and calling it a terrorist when it bites you. they are up against a wall because our corporations have taken advantage of thier lack of power.. they turn to terroism against corporations etc. and ultimately the U.S. the origin of the corporations.. GRANTED many countries are engaged in these corporate tactics of profit so its not just us.. to reduce terrorism we need to increase justice for workers.. DESPARATION IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF VIOLENCE .. reduce desparation and we reduce violence.. there are many parallels.

War in Afghanistan WAS Wrong.. We helped set up the Taliban, we helped train the Taliban, We helped Arm the Taliban, they were supposed to be one of our lap dogs in the mid east .. then when they stopped cooperating with our corporations for a pipeline(cheneys company) to get oil from the Caspian we looked into other ways to get them to "cooperate" they said they didnt know where Osama was so we went to war with them!? first even if they knew where he was and removed to hand him over War was not the solution. we dropped TONS(literally) of DU waste in thier country and killed what 10thousand afghanis? many of which were innocent.. again forming new enemies for the US.. that is leading with the barrel of a gun. Instead we could have worked with security people throughout the world and refused to join in the terrorism but it wasnt about osama it was about the oil and power gains.

Ronnie: .....Corporate America helps provide the American dream to the masses.

:lol yea how many jobs lost this week? how many pensions have they defrauded this week? how many health plans have they canceled this week? Corporations fight our rights every day. The only rights they honor are the rights that are granted by a lawsuit.. even if the rights were on paper in the first place we have to sue to get them enforced hald the time. >:

[Baalzamon]

Why hasnt enyone mentioned North Korea today?

and an even better question, why is everyone in the bush administration avoiding mentioning North Korea?

We've got these two members of the "Axis of Evil"

one country:

1. May have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but wont give a straight answer if you ask them and resist search attempts.

2. May or may not have a means of delivering these weapons that they may or may not have.

4. Ruled by a crazy dictator, who pulled some shit about 10 years ago and got his ass kicked. since then has spent most of his time trying to prevent inspectors from searching for weapons that may or may not exist.

5. Would get smacked down instantly if he tried to do anything to anybody, and is well aware of this.

The other:

1. Has blatantly pulled out of their arms agreements and has brought a nuclear program back online, with a big fuck you to anyone who says otherwise.

2. Is known to posess missiles to deliver these weapons.

3. Has been known to sell their military technology at every opportunity, to anyone with the cash.

4. Some of these missiles may be able to reach north america.(big on all the major the news stations today)

5. Is a communist dictatorship with an army of over 1 million people.



Now, I'm not saying that we should go to war with either of them. But can any of you honestly try to tell me that the first one is the bigger threat? If you where the president of the U.S.A. who would you be more worried about, and focus your energies on?(in whatever form that might be)

Why are the war-drums beating for Iraq, a country which has generally sat there and done nothing(relatively speaking) for the last 12 years? some would say that 12 years of diplomacy havent worked, so war is necessary. I ask you, what has he done in those 12 years that calls for war? A bit of dishonesty with the U.N, and some all round general evil dictator stuff. Nothing that would send us marching off desperately to war with any other asshole dictator in the world, whether we beleive they may have weapons of mass destruction or not.

And the Weapons of mass destruction issue seems to be the driving force in the push for war. Well I have yet to see any indication that Saddam would suddenly start using such weapons, even if he had them. The first middle eastern city he nuked or saturated with anthrax spores would send the whole U.N on his ass, France Germany and Russia right on side, and he knows this. Oh, but he went apeshit 12 years ago you say? sure he did, but this is today.

North Korea is known to be actively pursuing nuclear arms if they dont have them already, and I dont know about the rest of you, but I'm just a little bit more worried about them, from a personal safety standpoint.

G.W. wants the U.N. to show that they matter? then the U.N. nations should tell Bush to shove Iraq up his ass, and shift the debate to what should be done about N. Korea. G.W. doesnt like it? he can take his ball and go home, and shut the fuck up and let everyone else handle it.

Unfortunately the rest of the world finds it much easier to follow the leader. I find that very sad and disturbing. G.W., by taking over the process and directing it to his own ends, is driving the U.N. into the state of insignificance that he was so adamant in warning them to avoid back when this mess started.

It is by acting as the councill of nations that they are supposed to be, and not by being the U.S.'s bitch lap dog, that the U.N. will avoid such a fate, and I fear that the world doesnt have the balls for it, even all together.

[Baalzamon]

Almost forgot....


6!

:/

[ranxer]

bAALZ: The first middle eastern city he nuked or saturated with anthrax spores would send the whole U.N on his ass, France Germany and Russia right on side, and he knows this. Oh, but he went apeshit 12 years ago you say? sure he did, but this is today.

:lol :LOL

YEA! NO DOUBT!!!!

here's a guess why North Korea hasnt been mentioned, um, often

and this is just a guess,

cause im not sure about the geology of North Korea...

Maybe, its that there's oil in Iraq.?

[Baalzamon]

egads! he has oil!!!!?????? this changes everything!

5!

hurry up and countdown people, we gots to get that oil!

[roonTing]

"our "secret weapon" in gw1 was shells tipped with depleted uranium that upon contact with armor or rock or sand the depleted uranium(thats what we're doing with a lot of our nuclear waste) cuts through rock, armor etc and vaporizes creating a toxic waste puff that is similar to nuclear fallout."

Depleted Uranium tipped weapons are used because they are more dense than other metals, thereby making them more effective at piercing armor. The very fact that it is DEPLETED means that it is NOT radioactive in any way.


BAALZ... People fear the unknown. When you know about something you can face it, when you have no idea, you don't know what to expect. The unknown is much higher priority than the known by common sense and default. Is war avoidable... maybe. Does war change things...maybe. Just remember you can protest becuase people gave the ultimate sacrafice for you to have that right. And THAT is what America is about in the end.

[GAsux]

Heres the thing about DU rounds. The reason DU rounds are effective is because once they pierce the armor, they bounce around inside like a ping pong ball (dont ask me to explain the science of it because I don't know, I just know that's what they do). They are more effective because you get more bang for your buck than a round that pierces straight through.

As for the effects of DU, for every documented study that you could provide which says causes all the horrible things you've said, to the scale you've proposed, I can provide studies that say there is no effect. As far as I am concerned, that's a push. It's not clear either way. I'll even go so far as to concede that I'm sure DU is not healthy. Niether is smog caused by cars, which can be tied to millions of deaths every year. I'm quire sure that people aren't falling over and dying every day as a result of spent DU shells.


I think there are a lot of reasons Korea is being handled differently,, and I'll readily concede that oil is one of them. N. Korea plays nowhere near the important economic role Iraq does. Further, I am willing to bet that the administration is taking N. Koreas actions as a bluff. One might argue that the Koreans might think they have nothing to lose. That's true. But they also have nothing to gain. In the long term, initiating a conflict will do them no good.

Further, a closer study of the condition of N. Korea is quite telling. They do in fact have relatively sophisticated ballistic missiles. However, the ability and will to fight of their "million man army" is vastly overrated, as most experts agree. A majority of those million are foreced to serve, get paid little or nothing, and are freezing and starving to death. Logistically they are not capable of carrying out the kind of campaign necessary to do any real damage. If the Koreans moved right now, they'd be in Seoul in a few hours. A few hours later, they'd be dead.

So anyway, again, I'm not trying to sound like Ronnie here. I'm simply trying to make the case that between Ronnie's blind conservatism and Ranxers sometimes fanatical liberality, there exists some middle ground.

[Baalzamon]

Your right about N. Korea, they probably arent much of a threat in a practical sense. I was simply trying to breakdown one of the key arguments of the warmongers. If your going to chase after Iraq, and your not even sure what they have, you have to chase down N. Korea too.

By raising a stink about one dictator, and doing nothing about the other, in my view, the Bush administration has shown that they do not have the moral justification for this war, and are only in it "for the oil".

They say that N. Korea is better dealt with by diplomacy. I think thats great. But there has been absolutely no energy displayed by the bush administration in dealing with N. korea. G.W. bitches and cries and screams and throws temper tantrums about killing saddam NOW, but hasnt adressed N. Korea with any more than a passing interest. His motives are written all over his actions, and I dont agree with those motive.

Iraq should be very near the mottom of the list right now when it comes to major threats, and that in my opinion makes invading their country a low priority as well.

Convince N. Korea to cool it, then maybe it will be time for Iraq.

Then again, maybe that whole terrorist thingy might be a higher priority than Iraq too.


5!
:/

[Vibecrewangel]

Not for the squeemish.......

http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/nuclear/dupict00.htm

Not taking a side in this discussion, just posting a link that was sent to me for the sake of this discussion.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Max,

Please go to the Multinational Monitor online and post your opinion of it's contents.

[ranxer]

this is happening to our own soldiers that fought for gw1 ..
aka gulfwar syndrome.. its not just iraqis suffering from depleted uranium. the vets that are getting health coverage are the ones not saying anything about du or gulfwar syndrome .. if the vet has health care problems that he calls Depleted Uranium effects or Gulfwar syndrome he will be refused health coverage >:

[Ronnie Raygun]

There is no suffering due to uranium deposits.....

.....look! there's a black helicopter!!!!

[mburbank]

I read the front page. It certainly has an angle, but the material was largely factual. I storngly dislike there use of the words "Mere" and "Uninspired" as they are uneccesarily loaded words, and inspiration is subjective in nature.

Those mistake were enough that I wouldn't source it myself, and would make the effort to coroborate any factual material presented.

I will point out that what I objected to about those two words can be found in almost any paragraph in newsmax article, but it's the same sort of thing.

[sadie]

ronnie! remember this? i made it just for you, and you never even thanked me. :(


:) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :hypno :hypno :hypno :hypno :) :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :hypno :hypno :hypno :hypno :) :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :hypno :) :) :) :hypno :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[sspadowsky]

4.

Man, I'm bored.
________
Shower fat (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/980/fat/videos/1)

[Protoclown]

3.

FUCK THE WORLD, LET'S BLOW UP EVERYBODY!! USA!! USA!!! USA!!

[ItalianStereotype]

USA!USA!USA!


2!

NOBODY ELSE POST UNTIL WE INVADE, THAT DOESNT COUNT THE SPECIAL FORCES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE

[mburbank]

Man, I was gonna blame Bush for this Fiasco, but now I blame you bastards. COUNTING DOWN!! That is SO irresponsible.

[mburbank]

Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld states that the use of 'human shields' is war crime and warns Iraq if they use them we will bomb them even harder. He goes on to decalre westerners volunterally in Iraq to be Human Shields, thus paving the way to declare all civilian cassualities in Iraq Human Shields, making them

A.) not our fault

and

B.) Giving dead innocents a far more media friendly name than 'collateral damage'.

[Anonymous]

yep saw that. what a crock of shit

[BombsBurstingInAir]

depression

[mburbank]

Cool Moonless nights in Iraq early in March.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

So I wonder what body double gets capped in the head while Saddomy is living it up in Tahiti?

Poor guys dead body is going to be paraded in front of the world :(

[mburbank]

Ask the CIA.

[FS]

Let's hope some sneaky press photographer gets a chance to snap-shot one of "our" human shield-guys seconds before a bomb lands directly on his head.

Sort of like the student standing up to the tank in Japan.

[george]

saturday baby!!!! i am going to bet saturday!!!!!!!!!!

my nephew is on the frontlines of this, literally :(

i wish them victory.

[GAsux]

It's all about the weather. There is a very limited window of decent weather in the region. By May, it will be 100+ and no one wants to be in chem gear running around the desert killing iraqi civilians. It's not much of a stretch to assume that it will happen in the next week or two.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2796109.stm

Missing US men 'prisoners of war'

Left-wing rebels in Colombia say three US citizens they are holding hostage are prisoners of war and will only be freed in return for the release of several fellow militants.

In a statement released on Monday, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) demanded a demilitarised zone from the government.

"The three gringo prisoners of war in the custody of our organisation will be liberated along with other Colombian prisoners of war once an exchange materialises in a large demilitarised zone," the statement said.

The group also demanded the release of militants held in Colombian militants.

FARC accuses the three men of being CIA agents.

Washington has denied the men were CIA agents, and said they were contractors for the defence department.

However, the US has not identified the men nor stated what mission they were on.


Fierce fighting has taken place as the Colombian army tries to close in on the guerrilla group.

US President George Bush is sending 150 extra troops to Colombia to help the search operation.

The FARC said in its statement the decision, saying it was an "invasion by the United States of our country."

Reward offered

There are several hundred US military personnel in Colombia, including some special forces, but they are not allowed to take part in combat.

The US has spent $2bn in recent years to help Colombia tackle its illegal drugs trade, and recently lifted restrictions stopping the use of that aid against the guerrillas.

The three Americans held by FARC vanished when their plane crash-landed on 13 February in the remote southern province of Caqueta, long a rebel stronghold.

A fourth American and a Colombian army sergeant who were also aboard the US Government Cessna plane were found shot dead at the jungle site.

This is the first time that US Government employees have been captured during Colombia's four decades of civil war.

The Colombian Government has offered a $345,000 reward for information leading to the safe return of the missing men who have not been identified.
-30-

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It would be really nice if Iraq cooperated a little bit!! >: :angryrepublican

*sigh* SOMEtimes war is the ONLY option for stray cats like this! We really DON'T want war!!! :rolleyes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2807073.stm

Iraq 'to begin missile destruction'
Iraqi officials have said they could start destroying their al-Samoud II missiles by Saturday, as demanded by chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix.
The announcement firms up an earlier agreement in principle by Baghdad to destroy the weapons, which the UN has declared in breach of Iraqi obligations on disarmament.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, echoing the sentiments of the Bush administration, has dismissed the Iraqi offer as another example of Baghdad playing games with inspectors.

But French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said it was an important step in the disarmament of Iraq and confirmed that the inspections produced results.


Iraqi anger

In a letter to Mr Blix, Saddam Hussein's scientific adviser said he agreed "in principle" to the destruction of the missiles.

General Amir al-Saadi requested a UN technical team to discuss the "framework and timetable" for the task; deputy executive chairman of the UN inspectors, Demetrius Perricos, is already in Baghdad to oversee the process.

"There will be technical discussions between Unmovic and Iraq on Saturday morning following which the destruction process could start," Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the inspectors, told Reuters news agency.

The BBC's Paul Wood in Baghdad says informed sources in the Iraqi capital said the letter also contained some angry words.

Baghdad complained that the inspectors had ignored the scientific and technical facts about the missile and repeated a demand for more tests on the missiles to determine whether they violate the 150 kilometres (93 miles) range limit set after the 1991 Gulf War.

Despite this protest, our correspondent says the Iraqis concluded that open defiance of Mr Blix was not an option while the UN Security Council is considering the resolution which would trigger a war.

In other developments:

The US orders a sixth aircraft carrier, the Nimitz, to the Gulf, where more than 200,000 troops are now posted. B-2 stealth bombers are also being deployed for the first time.

President Saddam Hussein tells Iraqis to go into their gardens and start digging air raid shelters.

Iraq starts moving major elements of a Republican Guard division south, possibly towards Baghdad or Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, according to US defence officials.


Mr Blair, holding talks with his Spanish counterpart Jose Maria Aznar, declared he knew Baghdad would comply with the UN order before Mr Blix reported to the Security Council on Saturday on progress in Iraq.

"The moment I heard earlier in the week that Saddam Hussein was saying he would not destroy the missiles was the moment I knew that later in the week he would announce, just before Dr Blix reported, that he would indeed destroy these missiles," he told reporters in Madrid.

The BBC has obtained a draft copy of Mr Blix's report - leaked just before Iraq's decision to comply with the UN was made public - in which he says inspections had produced "very limited" results.

Russia veto threat

Meanwhile Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on Friday said if needed Moscow will use its UN Security Council veto to preserve "international stability".

"Russia will not support a resolution or resolutions which directly or indirectly open the way towards a power solution of the Iraqi problem," he said in Beijing, where he is holding talks.

The Security Council is bitterly divided over the need for a second resolution saying Iraq has failed to disarm - with permanent, veto-wielding members France and Russia favouring more time for weapons inspections.

Any resolution needs the backing of nine of the 15 Council members and must not be vetoed by any of the five permanent members.
-30-

[FS]

1.5...

[mburbank]

60,000 more troops to the Gulf, making a nice 290,000 once they arrive.


1.25...

[ItalianStereotype]

this thread is much more appropriate now that we have less than an hour until the presidents deadline.

[ItalianStereotype]

4 minutes left.


1...

[ItalianStereotype]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND...................


0!

[Esuohlim]

I hate those six-week-long countdowns from ten.