People have too much fucking time on their hands.
The reason why I fucking hate religious fuckers like this fucking asshole is right in that article. "If people won't go to church then the church needs to go to the people." You know why those people aren't going to church? They don't fucking want to, that's why. Leave them alone, you self-righteous fucks.
Saturday, April 19, 2003
Thursday, April 17, 2003
One thing that the tension in Iraq has often been likened to is the 1956 Suez Crisis. If you can't remember the details of the Suez crisis, like me, you can look it up on everything2.
A lot of the feelings and opinions on Britain and France's attack on Egypt were very reminiscient of things being said today, as this article from November, 1956 showed me.
Militarily, Suez didn't turn into a quagmire, just like many of us thought was possible with Iraq today. That's not to say that Suez in 1956 didn't have important ramifications, just like is still possible today. Indeed, we have definitely laid the foundations for plenty of trouble in the future. After about a week after the fall of Baghdad (looks like I was wrong, and last Wednesday pretty much was the fall) plenty of humanitarian as well as law and order issues still remain. Then there's all the people who, whether they're glad Saddam is gone or not, don't like us being there all that much. Let's not forget about those who have lost loved ones in the American invasion. And of course, who knows what unforseeable things we've done to piss off the next Osama.
So far, things could be much worse, obviously. Let's just hope we don't screw this reconstruction thing up too badly
A lot of the feelings and opinions on Britain and France's attack on Egypt were very reminiscient of things being said today, as this article from November, 1956 showed me.
Militarily, Suez didn't turn into a quagmire, just like many of us thought was possible with Iraq today. That's not to say that Suez in 1956 didn't have important ramifications, just like is still possible today. Indeed, we have definitely laid the foundations for plenty of trouble in the future. After about a week after the fall of Baghdad (looks like I was wrong, and last Wednesday pretty much was the fall) plenty of humanitarian as well as law and order issues still remain. Then there's all the people who, whether they're glad Saddam is gone or not, don't like us being there all that much. Let's not forget about those who have lost loved ones in the American invasion. And of course, who knows what unforseeable things we've done to piss off the next Osama.
So far, things could be much worse, obviously. Let's just hope we don't screw this reconstruction thing up too badly
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
When I first saw the teaser to this article, I thought maybe there was some hope for Nintendo yet, which has done nothing but fuck up from the time of the N64 up until the new Zelda atrocity. Then I read the line that they're trying to make games less challenging, and once again, I'm like "Fuck Nintendo. They're never getting LameCube money out of me."
Now that we're fucking them in person, we don't need to do it from afar with sanctions.
Fucking assholes. Sanctions did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people, and either failed to weaken Saddam or acutally helped strengthen him. But now that we're in charge, we don't need the sanctions anymore, because we're causing enough problems just by being there. Yeah, liberation is nice, but we had better get our shit together.
Fucking assholes. Sanctions did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people, and either failed to weaken Saddam or acutally helped strengthen him. But now that we're in charge, we don't need the sanctions anymore, because we're causing enough problems just by being there. Yeah, liberation is nice, but we had better get our shit together.
You know, I hate meeting and talking to people, so you would think things like this would be right up my alley, but I still think there's something fucked up about it.
Oh, and leave it up to the Germans to come up with creepy shit. The Unsicht-Bar sounds like a real lovely dining experience.
Oh, and leave it up to the Germans to come up with creepy shit. The Unsicht-Bar sounds like a real lovely dining experience.
Oh, and while we're at it, we've passed the "next five days" time for people involved with the Iraqi regime to start coming forward. I've heard of one guy so far, saying that weapons were supposedly within an 18-mile radius or something like that, but I don't know if anything ever came of that. Also, what the hell happened to the mobile weapons labs that were unearthed? And how about the warhead that was supposedly loaded with nerve agent, which showed positive in one test and negative in another?
Maybe we should listen to this guy, since he may know a thing or two about reconstruction after a war.
Something else Karzai knows a bit about is the Americans doing a less-than-stellar job of nation rebuilding. I know it's not an easy task, but maybe we should try and keep in mind just how fucking difficult it is before we keep jumping into that scenario. Regardless, it's a shame Karzai can't just say to us "Hey, you aren't doing enough to help us out here" just for fear that we would completely abandon Afganistan - just like we did after their war with the Soviets. We pretty much seem interested in going after terrorists, and nothing else. Going after terrorists is all fine and good, but we should be more proactive in helping the Afghani people - especially since we fucking said we would.
Something else Karzai knows a bit about is the Americans doing a less-than-stellar job of nation rebuilding. I know it's not an easy task, but maybe we should try and keep in mind just how fucking difficult it is before we keep jumping into that scenario. Regardless, it's a shame Karzai can't just say to us "Hey, you aren't doing enough to help us out here" just for fear that we would completely abandon Afganistan - just like we did after their war with the Soviets. We pretty much seem interested in going after terrorists, and nothing else. Going after terrorists is all fine and good, but we should be more proactive in helping the Afghani people - especially since we fucking said we would.
God, I am sick and fucking tired of the state of the economy being tied to the war. There are plenty of problems with our economy that a war simply won't fix. Why is that so hard to see?
Sanctions, oil. Are we just trying to provoke them for some reason? Not like they're going to start running boming raids on Washington, but are we trying to piss the Syrians off so much that they finally retaliate, giving us an excuse to fuck them up?
You can't argue balls and strikes, but you can try to beat the shit out of the umpires.
On a side note, that article is the first time that I've heard that Comiskey was renamed "U.S. Cellular Field." Look, fuck the Sox and all that, but renaming Comiskey park is a fucking disgrace. They had better never try and pull that with Wrigley, otherwise shit's gonna be on fire.
On a side note, that article is the first time that I've heard that Comiskey was renamed "U.S. Cellular Field." Look, fuck the Sox and all that, but renaming Comiskey park is a fucking disgrace. They had better never try and pull that with Wrigley, otherwise shit's gonna be on fire.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Super. As if bickering like this isn't bad in and of itself, this will also give the US more time to make excuses for not publishing the middle east peace roadmap.
Monday, April 14, 2003
Bullshit. I first heard talk about postponing this summit come about when the U.S. and Canada were trading insults over Canada's abstention from combat. I'm sure the fact that we we're (unjustly) pissed off at Canada had nothing to do with this summit being postponed.
One thing I've talked a lot about, or at least thought a lot about, is the motivations for going to war in the first place. Here's an interesting take on that line of thought.
I can definitely believe that doing it "just because we can" is one reason to go to war, but not the only one. To look for motivations, I think you need to look at the individual players.
G Dubya: revenge, oil, polls, because he can, and because he was told it's a good idea.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and company: these guys are acting out neo-conservative thought. They want to reshape the world in America's image. In many ways, to me, they are democracy's form of Christian missionaries. In their minds, they know what is best for the world (i.e. American democracy), and they are willing to do what it takes to get people in line with this - whether they like it or not. As America, the only remaining superpower, they believe that we have an obligation to do this.
Cheney: I'm sure oil is in there for him (Halliburton isn't doing too bad, despite losing one big contract), and he's also bought into the neo-conservative line of thinking.
Colin Powell: Originally in favor of containment. I think part of his change of heart was due to a feeling of betrayal from some of our European aliies. The main reason for the change, I think, was merely him being beaten into submission and being forced to follow the Administration.
The American people: A few people probably genuinely wanted freedom for Iraqis, but most were first and foremost concerned with revenge for September 11th. See, we know we're probably never going to find Osama, and many people think that most of the September 11th hijackers came from Iraq (and not Saudi Arabia, which is the reality). So, getting revenge by taking out Iraq was good enough for many people.
I can definitely believe that doing it "just because we can" is one reason to go to war, but not the only one. To look for motivations, I think you need to look at the individual players.
G Dubya: revenge, oil, polls, because he can, and because he was told it's a good idea.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and company: these guys are acting out neo-conservative thought. They want to reshape the world in America's image. In many ways, to me, they are democracy's form of Christian missionaries. In their minds, they know what is best for the world (i.e. American democracy), and they are willing to do what it takes to get people in line with this - whether they like it or not. As America, the only remaining superpower, they believe that we have an obligation to do this.
Cheney: I'm sure oil is in there for him (Halliburton isn't doing too bad, despite losing one big contract), and he's also bought into the neo-conservative line of thinking.
Colin Powell: Originally in favor of containment. I think part of his change of heart was due to a feeling of betrayal from some of our European aliies. The main reason for the change, I think, was merely him being beaten into submission and being forced to follow the Administration.
The American people: A few people probably genuinely wanted freedom for Iraqis, but most were first and foremost concerned with revenge for September 11th. See, we know we're probably never going to find Osama, and many people think that most of the September 11th hijackers came from Iraq (and not Saudi Arabia, which is the reality). So, getting revenge by taking out Iraq was good enough for many people.
Okay, the fact that the White House is explicitly ruling out action against Syria worries me a little. Also, the fact that Tony Blair had to vehemently deny any plans to attack Syria is bothersome.
The fact that people from so high up have so say things like this shows that there is significant discussion going on about attacking Syria. Dismissing the idea as "conspiracy theory" is rather harsh; the Pentagon had people working on a plan to attack Syria. It's not theory when we know for sure that they, if nothing else, have gotten ideas.
Naturally, this is just my mind at work, always looking for an angle, but I think that the White House is purposely leaking misinformation (you know, misinformation - lies). George Bush was reported as replying "Good" one day when told that Rummy was threatening Syria, so I think he wants to go after Syria. And we know that people like Wolfowitz, the architect of all this, wants Syria gone. He has said that "plainly" there must be a change in Syria.
Discussions on sanctions against Syria are already in the works. We have clearly taken an agressive stance towards Syria - the question is whether or not military action will be used against them.
The fact that people from so high up have so say things like this shows that there is significant discussion going on about attacking Syria. Dismissing the idea as "conspiracy theory" is rather harsh; the Pentagon had people working on a plan to attack Syria. It's not theory when we know for sure that they, if nothing else, have gotten ideas.
Naturally, this is just my mind at work, always looking for an angle, but I think that the White House is purposely leaking misinformation (you know, misinformation - lies). George Bush was reported as replying "Good" one day when told that Rummy was threatening Syria, so I think he wants to go after Syria. And we know that people like Wolfowitz, the architect of all this, wants Syria gone. He has said that "plainly" there must be a change in Syria.
Discussions on sanctions against Syria are already in the works. We have clearly taken an agressive stance towards Syria - the question is whether or not military action will be used against them.
Yup, Syria's definitely looking as if they're "next on the list". I don't really care what Jack Straw says, our officials are just itching to go after Syria.
If we go into Syria, I wonder if the British will actually stand up to us, or if Tony Blair will just roll over and die and follow us in.
If we go into Syria, I wonder if the British will actually stand up to us, or if Tony Blair will just roll over and die and follow us in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
