General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2313953

    The War Is In Iraq.

    Locked

    by jardinier ·

    When a discussion has passed the 150 postings mark, I think it might be a good idea to start a fresh one to get back to the original topic.

    The way things are going, we might end up discussing the Civil War or the War of Independence.

    Mallard’s discussion: “Time To Pay The Piper” has certainly proved to be an excellent vehicle for the exchange of views, experiences and general information.

    Good one, Duck!

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3461495

      British Marines thrashed in Iraq

      by oldefar ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      In light of the beating given the Royal Marines by Iraq, has the Australian perspective changed at all? I mean really, 7-3 is a bit lopsided a score. See artical at http://tinyurl.com/8sd6
      Of course, the Royal Marines were not expecting a local club in full kit to meet them on the pitch.

      Perhaps the Australians could send them some Fosters to fortify them for a rematch.

      In other news, the Royal Marines appear to be doing an excellent job againt Saddam’s forces, and a commendable performance on winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis they have liberated. My sincere sympathy for those lost to friendly fire, and deepest gratitude for Great Britain’s participation.

      • #3461490

        Loved the article

        by road-dog ·

        In reply to British Marines thrashed in Iraq

        This is truly “Winning Hearts and Minds”. There is nothing that binds us all more than sports.

        This story reminds me of a statement made about the US Marines, “No better friend; no worse enemy”.

        The fact that the Iraqis fielded a team for a good natured sporting event shows that this nation is not so different from us, and is ready to show it’s best face to the world also.

        It always amazes me; the humanity that arises amid the horrors of war.

        I’d like to second Oldfar’s sentiments regarding “friendly fire”. It is a tragic aspect of war and scars the mates of the victims as well as the unfortunates who pull the trigger.

        As we used to say when I wore a lot of green, “friendly fire isn’t, recoilless rifles aren’t”.

        • #3458767
          Avatar photo

          Road Dog as promised

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Loved the article

          Here’s the location of the Australian Study on Gulf War Syndrome its just been realeased on the Australian Gov web site http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2003/gulfwarhs/index.htm

          The other one a bit harder to find as it’s been out a couple of years and like most Government Departments they place it in full public view in the most unlikely place. Like down the concreated over stair well where the lifts don’t go and the light bulb is blown in the 4,000,000 th Locked Filing cabnit.

          Ok I’mjust doing a bit of Government Bashing.

        • #3458664

          I read the executive summary

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Road Dog as promised

          but conventional wisdom is that the devil is in the details. On the surface, the study shows a solid effort to identify and isolate GWS as a discrete set of symptoms that can be directly attributed to service, using a similar contrast group with similar backgrounds without Gulf War service.

          The test methodology appears sound.

          So, how does this back up your assertions that these vets are being treated as expendable? I reiterate my previous point that such studies indicate a pattern of acknowledgement of GWS, although absent of conclusive cause and effect data.

          Your original posting on this was sharply critical of the various governments involved. You must admit that such studies require time and testing to reach usable (valid) conclusions.

          Lack of results does not equal lack of effort.

        • #3538399
          Avatar photo

          I tend to agree

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I read the executive summary

          About the bit that the devils in the detail the sumary was what the Government Department produced after the report was handed in it only took them about 6 weeks. While it shows an attempt to actually try to isolate the so called GWS from people whowhere actually involved as suffers of GWS this report was set up in such a manner that no real outcome could be concluded they dilebertly removed people from the test group. If you have the time to waste the full report makes for some interesting reading but it only supports what the Government wanted to hear and not what actually has happened. The previous bit was from a group of Gulf War Vetrans and is not my assursertions so please don’t hold me responsible for them.

          Lack of results doesn’t equal lack of effort but when that effort is directed at disproving that something actually exists then the whole process comes into question. Now exactly what was it that Samual Clements said “Theres Lies, Lies and Bloody??????”

      • #3461486

        Strangely enough.

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to British Marines thrashed in Iraq

        In view of the context (the football match) I don’t know whether your question is flippant or serious. So I’ll take it as serious and give you an update of what is happening in Australia.

        As I have no doubt mentioned in some other posting, I livein the mostly strongly Liberal area in Australia. And yet everyone I talk to is totally against Australia’s involvement in the war. (The PM of course belonging to the Liberal Party).

        In Australia Liberals cannot attract enough votes to win power,so they have long relied on a coalition with the National Party (formerly the Country Party, until they realised it was much more profitable to support the mining of minerals rather than farmers and graziers.)

        So the current Coalition Government would be the equivalent of your Republican Party, while the Labor Opposition would be the equivalent of your Democratic Party.

        However the acid test will come at the next Federal Election, which could be called at any time up to the end of 2004.
        I am totally confident that all Australians will give our troops a hero’s welcome on their return, whichever way the pendulum swings.

        • #3461447

          Thanks for the links

          by admin ·

          In reply to Strangely enough.

          to the press down under 🙂 I have been watching them too.

          I had one question though. At times I have seen CNN and MSNBC run repeated text that the Australians are going home right after the war as if this is significant, but have not explained this that I have seen. I could make some assumptions about why, but I really don’t know and wondered if you could enlighten us on this subject 🙂

          Thanks!

        • #3461352

          Uncertain at this time.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Thanks for the links

          Prime Minister John Howard is a cagey devil. Right up until the day that the attack commenced, even though ships and troops had already arrived in the Gulf, he refused to make a definite statement as to whether Australia would actually participate in the war. He is being equally non-committal as to the situation when the war ends.

          Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has had talks with George Bush I believe, both in regard to a UN based interim administration, and allowing Australian companies to tender for work in the rebuilding.

          The Federal Labor Opposition has spoken against Australian involvement in the war right from the beginning, and still expresses that view. The Senate, which has a non-Government majority, has also spoken out firmly against Australian involvement and continues to do so.

        • #3539568

          interim administration

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Uncertain at this time.

          There is no need for much of an interim administartion in Iraq. Iraq is a pseudodemocracy with all the administrtive apparatus for elections, so as soon as any political unit is captured the capturers should call elections for that unit for 6 weeks in the future – not six months, not six years. When the Iraqis have elected a parliament democratically for the whole country, that parliament can decide who gets the contracts for cleaning up and rebuilding, whether the 18 provinces should be coalesced into 4 lands, whether the oil industry should be privatized and if so how, etc. There is no need for the gallant liberators to get involved in these essentially local details: the point of liberation is precisely to let the Iraqis choose their own way. This would also save the liberators from much ill will about such decisions.

        • #3539489

          I Disagree

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to interim administration

          To simply call for elections and expect the existing apparatus to work is an unrealistic expectation.

          The existing political infrastructure is so tainted with terrorism that the people would have no confidence in the result. There are also otheroutside factions that will undoubtedly begin immediately to fill the power vacuum created by toppling Saddam. The Baath party, although decimated by fratricide in Saddam’s singleminded pursuit of control has other would be dictators in their ranks. There are radical Islamic elements who would also attempt to create a government alon the same lines as the economic disaster across the border in Iran.

          The Kurds have expressed intent to exist as a politically influential body as part of a unified Iraq. If either of the above two options come to pass, they will secede. They have the political will and the arms to do so. If so, posession of the northern oil fields will be hotly disputed and possibly cause ethnic war.

          To call for a 6 week election is not a viable option. This new political apparatus must be protected until it has assumed central control of the country. We would be inviting a socioeconomic disaster if we fail to give a true democracy to take root.

        • #3539472

          Historical Perspective

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to interim administration

          There is historical precedent as to how long it takes to make a transition between authoritan rule to democracy. To expect the Iraqis to complete this transition in 6 weeks is an invitation for disaster. The forces that would tear Iraq apart are exponentially greater than what our Continental Congress faced in our long road to becoming a functioning Republic.

          To place an arbitrary timeline for this transition for the sake of self determination is nonsense in light of how long it took us to frame our government and select our first leader. Bear in mind that there are different groups within Iraq who would begin genocide against eachother at the first major disagreement on the framework.

          1774 – first meeting of the first Continental Congress
          1776 – Issuance of the Declaration of Independence
          1783 – Great Britain and The United States reach a formal agreement ending hostilities and defining the borders of the new country
          1787 – The first draft of the US constitution is published and ratification proceedings begin
          1788 – The continental Congress ratifies the US Constitution
          1789 – George Washington is sworn in as the first President of the United States
          1789 – The Bill of Rights is ratified

          Let’s not rush Iraq. Let’s give them the best chance at success that we can.
          http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/

        • #3538912

          We call our “natives” Aboriginals …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Historical Perspective

          Sorry, but had to back-up as maximum message level was reached.

          While we cannot of course undo the past, or accept the blame for the actions of our ancestors, Australia is currently going through a lengthy and complex process of giving official recognition to our indigenous people as the true owners of the land which our early settlers conquered by force, and murdered as many as possible of the true native population.

          In fact it is generally believed that total genocide of the Aboriginal people was achieved in our island State of Tasmania.

          Does anyone know of a historical precedent in which a conquering nation actually acknowledged the true ownership of the country which they had invaded?

          And please let’s not get sidetracked ona discussion about the State of Israel, which was set up by the United Nations.

        • #3539417

          Nice to have you back, John.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to interim administration

          It’s a pity that you got bucketed with your first posting to the the ongoing war discussions. Actually, of course, the real war is the one that is being fiercely contested in Techrepublic discussions. Those flashes and bangs which you see on the major television networks are actually just a cynical plot by the networks to increase their ratings.

          But to be serious I would have to agree with road-dog as regards the time it might take to establish a stable regime.

          After all, it took 120 years to establish the first Australian Federal Government and Constitution.

        • #3538947

          Is there a timeline

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Nice to have you back, John.

          for the creation of Australia’s current Constitution and Government available on the web?

          120 years for yours? Wow, our government actually produced something on time and under budget!

          Sorry for “bucketing” your friend, I just calls ’em as I sees ’em. I hope that my point came across in an informative and reasoned way.

          I’m frustrated by many “expert” evaluations of the war’s progress in the media as of late. I think it’s important and relevant to assess today’s events in direct historical context.

          I agree with CENTCOM’s assertions that the war will take as long as it takes and the Bush Administrations statements that the war will cost as much as it costs.

          I find it offensive that many politicians are bashing the war on cost, when one considers that 9-1-1 cost us approximately a trillion with all direct and indirect costs involved.

          Prevention of further attacks and the a more peaceful Middle East will be seen as “cheap at twice the price” in the hindsight of our descendants.

        • #3538946

          How did Australia function

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Nice to have you back, John.

          during theis 12 years? Was there a “defacto” government made “dejure” with the ratification? Were there significant milestones and events that occurred that tested this fledgeling government?

          How were conflicts resolved? While our Continental congress was hammering out the details of our Constitution and creating the first 10 amendments that constitute the Bill Of Rights, there were several small uprisings that were “put down” forcibly. I find this interesting in light of the defacto status of the US government at the time.

          This same situation may well arise during the transition to a democratic Iraq, and will be debated in this forum should such circumstances come to pass. I suspect that such uprisings may well be forcibly supressed under “might makes right” justification to allow a coalition government time to be formalized.

          Any other opinions on this? Many other countries must have encountered similar circumstances while transitioning to their current styles of governments in “recent” history.

        • #3538932

          Not a real comparison.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Nice to have you back, John.

          Well of course there is no real comparison between the way in which a Federal Government evolved in Australia to the way in which it evolved in America. I was just making a light-hearted comment that these things don’t happen overnight.

          For a start, we didn’t have a War of Independence because we are still not a self-governing republic. The Queen of England is still our head of state, a fact dramatically demonstrated when her representative the Governor General sacked Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975, or thereabouts.
          Labor is pushing to make Australia a republic, but Mr Howard apparently is happy the way things are. A referendum was held in 1999 regarding Australia becoming a republic, but it was pretty obvious that the Coalition Government deliberately worded the referendum document to make sure it would not be accepted.

          And we have not fought a war to liberate our slaves as we have never had any.

          Obviously if you use the Internet you can find out anything you want to know about Australian history and the drawing up of the Consitution.

        • #3538922

          I was hoping for a native’s

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Nice to have you back, John.

          view of the history. The history presented in the books is source finite and subjective as the views and agendas of the writer influence the text…..

          OK, I got lazy, so sue me!

          Call it cultureal myopia, but I was unaware that Australia is still somewhat colonial in it’s relationship with GB. I’ve never considered Australia as anything other than an independent nation with historic ties to GB, cool accents, and BIG cans of beer.

        • #3458796
          Avatar photo

          Road Dog if you like our big

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Nice to have you back, John.

          Cans of Beer then you really need to try a Darwin Stubby. It’s only about 80 Fluid Onces I think as not being a beer drinker I didn’t really take that much notice but they are very big about the size of 1.5 bottles of wine and they actually call it a Stubby {here in Australia that means a small bottle}

        • #3461346

          Australian Politics Part 2.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Thanks for the links

          In the lead-up to our last Federal Election on November 10, 2001, Mr Howard indicated the possibility that he might surrender the leadership at his 64th birthday which I think is in June this year. However he will definitely not consider stepping down until the war has ended.

          There are two issues pending which he could use to call a double dissolution of both houses at any time. If he does not take this course of action it seems certain that he will contest the next election which can be called any time in 2004.

          The Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, has a poor rating as regards public appeal. However there are at least two Federal Labor MPs ready to fill the breach if his leadership is contested prior to any election. These are Kim Beazley, who remains in his chosen position on the back bench after the ALP failed to win the 2001 election under his leadership, and Mark Latham, who it seems is destined to become a Labor Prime Minister at some time in the future. As he is only 44 years of age, he is in no hurry to upset the apple-cart at this time.

        • #3539631

          Kidding Around

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Strangely enough.

          I was in desperate need of a break from the serious issues of the world. Reading that story really lifted my spirits, and I simply wanted to share with others whose opinions I respect.

          The additional comments were in case anyone felt offended. Intent and emotional context do not always come through as intended.

          I did appreciate you insight and update on Australian politics.

          To Road Dog, I think you nailed why I felt so good reading the article. Thanks.

      • #3538698

        Only based on what YOU are told

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to British Marines thrashed in Iraq

        As most American’s will agree, they are living in a country void of propaganda and filled with freedom.
        The only information MOST people are privy to is broadcast on network television. Not the intelligence of the CIA or FBI. Knowing how the media fills time and colors pretty pictures, you are only seeing half of the story (no, I’m not suggesting that Saddam is a nice guy).
        THe US radio stations pay what the labels (who own them) want to sell to American public. Does anyone REALLY think Brittany Spears can sing? If you think Madonna is the hottest woman around, you haven’t been around. THe public is simply sold and led to believe that these people are talented SUPERSTARS!!
        Go to another country and you will see tru freedom of expession, in radio and television media. ie. UK, Germany, Japan.
        The American public has even been led to believe that the US WON WWII !! Even though they missed the first three years altogether and weren’t under attack themselves.
        No it’s not propaganda, just VERY misleading and SOLD to public by the powers that be.

        As for the brave men and women who defend thier countries, I give a prayer from the bottom of my heart. They are strong and determined people who defend our peace, I thank them all and hope that they return safely.

        • #3534461

          Facts and Opinions

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Only based on what YOU are told

          Some people tend to confuse a media rich with opposing opinion as indicative of superior freedom of the press.

          The facts are as available to those of us in the US at least on an equal basis with those anywhere else in the world. Ignoring online access to foreign media, there is significant alternative perspectives for those who choose to use them.

        • #3534369

          Media bashing …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Only based on what YOU are told

          As “media bashing” seems to be a popular pastime with some of the regular posters to these discussions, I might point out the rather obvious fact that the reporters in Iraq put their lives on the line to an even greater degree than military personnel as, unlike soldiers, they are not dressed up like Rambo with multiple weaponry.

          I am not aware that any journalists even carry sidearms.

          And now, from the latest brodcast I have seen, the allies have resorted to killing them off with “friendly fire.” Well that tactic will ensure that no biased news reports reach the citizens of the USA.

        • #3534353

          Julian – always the cynic

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Media bashing …

          Can’t you refrain from always being so cynical? Do you actually believe that the soldiers want to be “killing off” (your words) the reporters in Iraq? Even to joke about it, or to present it as tongue-in-cheek is, in my opinion, very poor taste. Cynicism usually drips off your messages, and this is no exception. The sad thing is this: you come across to many people as though you really believe the dribble you dish out. (Do you really believe the reporters were targeted?)

          And besides, any red-blooded American knows that if an American soldier wanted reporters dead, Geraldo would have been the first to wander into someone’s sights. (Now that’s a joke in good taste.)

          The military doesn’t want them killed – or even stifled. The reportersare there because the military WANTS them there.

          Actually, the challenge (as far as media bias) is (for a change) on the other side of the spectrum. Reporters are living, eating and sleeping with the very soldiers they are covering. They are digging in and trying to stay alive right next to the very same soldiers who are going to keep them alive. How can they ask the tough questions, how can they report negatively about the soldiers who’ve undoubtedly, in some cases, become brothers-in-arms.

          Here’s an interesting story on that subject:

          http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/04/3e8daa4712e6b

          (No spaces in the URL)

          Moreover, the reporters are there by choice. And if he or she “puts his life on the line” by doing so, it’s his/her own doing. Be assured of one thing, however, the reporters are doing it, not for love of country, not for principle, not for the liberation of an oppressed people, not in a quest for the truth, not for you, and not for me. They are doing it all for reasons of their own – to advance their own careers, for the excitement, to flee an ex-wife, and so on.

        • #3534351

          I really hope you are joking

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Media bashing …

          Because if not, that would be one of the basest accusations I’ve seen in this forum to date.

          If you WERE joking, then if you’re going to ‘bash’ the media, what’s better to use than a 120mm smoothbore and a HEAT round….

        • #3534219

          More journalists have died …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Media bashing …

          At the most recent count which I have read, 11 journalists have lost their lives in Iraq.

          And as for the term “friendly fire,” well I was under the impression that everyone understood that this term refers to accidents and not deliberate actions.

        • #3539354

          Hold the Phone!

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Media bashing …

          Before continuing this topic, read:
          http://tinyurl.com/95vw

          Now there is a question as to who fragged the journalists.

          Also, one might consider that a journalist with a shoulder camera looks like somebody with an RPG from the front. When oneconsiders the distance, this could be adequately explain an accident, if an American tank did fire the fatal shot.

        • #3539301

          Thanks for the link.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Hold the Phone!

          While my comment was of course flippant, I freely admit that it may have been in poor taste.

          And I take your point that from a distance, a TV cameraman could be mistaken for a soldier with a mortar launcher on his shoulder.

          Thank you for clearing up this point for me.

        • #3534346

          An Arab Perspective

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Only based on what YOU are told

          I couldn’t help but think of your posting when I read this editorial on reporting the truth. Seems everyone believes everyone else is getting biased news around the world.

          http://tinyurl.com/9430

    • #3539621

      Questions Needing Answers

      by jkaras ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      Hey Jules, not to be incensitive to your fellow Aussies but has there been any Aussie casulties? Every night when I watch the news (CNN, MSNBC) they post only American and British casulties. The only one I’m aware of was the unfortunate camera man that got killed by a suicide bomb. I read on CNN all about all coalition special forces including Aussies like the S.A.S., and wow are they all bad mofos.
      As for everyone else my roomate told me that the graves of our American heros buried in Normandy was desecrated by unknown individuals. I havent heard anything on the news, however he claimed that its being kept quiet and can be found only on the internet. I believe that it has to be an internet hoax, and a poor one at that. I sincerly hope its a hoax and not for real, for I would do unspeakable things to those who would do such a thing to any grave, whether soldier or regular citizen. Could anyone enlighten me on this? I also heard that the firing upon the car that ran through the check point that killed everyone inside including a child was forced to run it or the other children of that family would be killed. It was claimed that the death squad took half the children as hostage leaving them no choice to but to run it to create a horrific propaganda report. I dont know of the validity on this either. Lastly, if the turncoat of the 101 airbourne is found guilty does he get the discraceful firing squad, hanging, or traditional execution? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

      • #3539612

        The stories you cite

        by road-dog ·

        In reply to Questions Needing Answers

        are getting more coverage on the net than on print and video media. As for the desecration of the allied graves, the French government has acknowledged the events and responded with sadness. Personally, is am mistrustful of their sincerity, but I will reserve judgement in absence of evidence. If greater police protection of these sacred sites happens or if those who perpetrated this obscenity are caught and charged I may find some redemption for the French government.

        As for that SOB that fragged the command tents of the 101st, I hope that he gets a speedy trial followed by a good old fashioned hanging. I suspect that he will be sentenced to life in Leavenworth.

        The Iraqis are now threatening “unconventional” warfare, which I take tomean that their troops will wear uniforms and not use civilians as shields. They might even cease operating from hospitals, schools and mosques.

      • #3539593

        my $.02

        by mallardtooxx ·

        In reply to Questions Needing Answers

        the French are all bastards, they will always be so and I think we should bring those boys home now because the ingrates obviously cannot handle the responsibility of having our dead there. They knocked over several grave stones and desicrated countless other sites it is atrocious and should be condemned vigorously. There are 56000 American men that gave up their lives in their youth to free them and this is how they are repaid. Typical.

        As for the Concientious Objector in the 101st, I beg to differ on his fate. I think a hanging is too nice, firing squad too quick and life in prison too light. The should put a granade up his.. and then tie the pin to a car and make him jog along beside it, if he can outlast the car then he can have the firing squad otherwise well you get the drift.

        I have heard nothing about the family running the guard post so I have no comment other than if it is true than it is too bad. Remember this WAR IS HELL and this is a reminder of that fact.

        -duck

        • #3539536

          I’ll Drive!!!!

          by jkaras ·

          In reply to my $.02

          Thanks for the input as to the validity of these reports both Duck and dog (hmmm…. sounds like a good title for a sitcom)The grave story made me quite angry and hope something will be done. As for the turncoat, I wondered since I’ve never served Idont know what the penalty is for fratracide, let alone higher ranking officers (like in dirty dozen was hanging)Hearing word of mouthof these stories made me wonder whether they were accurate or propaganda, or poor humor. I like offensive humor, but there is a line that just cant be crossed. However I really like your solution duck and I offer my services to drive, as for the stuffing of said grenade I’ll pass, either you can take that one or we could offer a bidding war to the lucky guy that wants to stuff that turkey. Maybe a lottery to fund an education program for the French to get a clue,…. wait a minute, there just isn’t enough money to throw at that lost cause.
          P.S. How about all the countries opposed to this war all of a suddenwanting to jump on our side for a piece of the pie? All aboard!! The band wagon is departing. How pathetic, really!!

        • #3458756

          Not that one

          by dcosgrove ·

          In reply to my $.02

          I think the individual in question is the one who tried to frag his co’s. I think the consciencious objector was a reservist. The man who threw the grenades will undoubtedly spend his life “making little rocks out of big rocks” as we used to say when I was in the 101st. I don’t think he will be tried for treason, his status as a Muslim seem coincidental at this point. He was a problem soldier and he had just been sent out of the combat force and was upset with his leadership. It’s far to glamourous to attribute him with some sort of moral dillema, he was just an idiot. We unfortunately have a couple fraggings in most combat scenarios where soldiers try to kill superiors for some reason or other. I knew an E-5 who supposedly blew up a bradley for that purpose. According to post legend he was still having money deducted to pay it off, fanciful but he was the oldest E-5 I ever met.

      • #3539537

        Rush Limbaugh

        by admin ·

        In reply to Questions Needing Answers

        Both of those items were broadcast yesterday by Rush himself. I was listening to the program while driving out to one of our offices. According to this broadcast the French cleaned it up immediately.
        He also talked about a reservist who claims thatno where in the recruitment process or since (until the war) was he ever told that the military killed people, so now that he knows, he wants out. Go figure.

        • #3458628

          How can you join the military

          by kethry127 ·

          In reply to Rush Limbaugh

          and not figure out that it might mean taking a life? As I recall, through at all of history, militaries have gone to war and generally that’s meant having to kill someone. They weren’t weaving baskets. If that’s his excuse he needs a swift kick for being boneheaded.

        • #3458595

          yep.

          by admin ·

          In reply to How can you join the military

          wow, something I think nearly everyone from every POV on this issue can probably agree with 🙂

        • #3538654

          Actually that guy is high

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to yep.

          I joined in 88, and unless the induction ceremony has changed. He knew what he was getting into.

          AR 601-270 covers this in detail:
          http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r601_270.pdf

          “You are about to be inducted into the Armed Forces ofthe United States, in the Army, the Air Force, or the Marine
          Corps, as indicated by the Service announced following
          your name when called. You will take one step forward
          as your name and Service are called and such step will
          constitute your induction into the Armed Forces indicated.”

          “I,___(Name) , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
          I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
          States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and I
          will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
          I will obey the orders of the President of the United
          States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
          according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military
          Justice. So help me God.”

          If he said those words or even pretended to say them. Then he is screwed.

          There was a question about consientious objection. If he waived it, then he does not have a leg to stand on.

        • #3534466

          hehehe that’s what we are agreeing on

          by admin ·

          In reply to Actually that guy is high

          yep. Legally, common sense wise from pretty much every possible angle he’s dust.

        • #3534382

          Change or memory glitch?

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Actually that guy is high

          Although I took the oath on 3 occaissions, it seems that it has changed in the past couple of decades.

          “I will obey the LAWFUL orders of the President of the United States and of the officers appointed over me” is how I remember it. In fact, theissue was specific based on the Nuremberg trials where following orders was not a defense for war crimes.

          Why the change, or is my memory failing?

        • #3539146

          I pulled it

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to Change or memory glitch?

          straight out of the AR.

          Since it’s MEPS, it should all be the same.

          I only did my once (8 May 88), so I can’t remeber verbatim the exact words. But I do rememeber support and defend the constitution.

          I did not loook at a revision date of the AR.

        • #3539277

          Appreciated the link

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Change or memory glitch?

          I saw that, Lordinfidel, and did reference the link. I last took it in 1980, and it was in 1976 that I remember the “lawful” part since the captain administering the oath made me redo that line. My “uh” made it sound like “unlawful orders”. 🙂

          I believe the discussion regarding why it specifically included lawful orders came about at the NCO Academy in 1977.

          Of course, my memory could be shot. A lot of alcohol was consumed during those days, a lot of good cells died young.

      • #3539449

        Not that I know of.

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Questions Needing Answers

        No, apart from the unfortunate camerman, I haven’t heard of any Australian casualites, although this is not surprising as our troups number less than one percent of the allied forces.

        We have been told right from the beginning that our SAS soldiers were amongst the first to penetrate into enemy territory. And as you know, RAN divers risked their lives to locate and remove mines in the Gulf to allow safe passage for supply ships.

        Because we are such a large country in physical size, but small in population (20 million) we could never defend our country from attack with our own military resources. So we can’t afford to send all our military to the other side of the world.

        I realise that you are only asking a simple question, but I do feel compelled to suggest that Australia’s contribution to this conflict has been quite significant relative to the small size of our population.

        • #3458748

          Thanks again

          by dcosgrove ·

          In reply to Not that I know of.

          I know I said this in another discussion, but I don’t mind restating. As an American, I truly appreciate the support of the Australian and British governments. I can understand the public sentiment regarding this, you are not as closely involvedinthe middle east as the U.S. I have never even thought the Australian contribution to be less than GB’s due to numbers, I have not actually stopped to consider numbers at all. The Aussies are there with us and that’s all that matters.

    • #3539541

      OK, Suppose we capture Saddam Alive

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      What should be done with him?

      I’ve got 3 scenarios:

      1 – UN War Crimes Trial
      I’m against this one because Saddam’s fate would be decided in a forum where his trial would become a propaganda farce that Arab extremists would use as fodder for terrorism.

      2 – Trial under Iraqi Law
      I think that Saddam’s crimes are against the Iraqi people but trial under the new interim government would be too inciteful of extremist groups and sorely test the fledgeling new government. There is also the possibility that such an action would be illegal, as laws against Saddam’s actions would be enacted after the actual rimes.

      3 – Islamic Trial
      This is my personal favorite. I think that Saddam should be tried in a Shiite Islamic venue. This will almost certainly result in a horrific execution that Islamic Extremists would have little justifiable argument. Additionally, It would provide some cathartic justice for the Shiite clergy that has already issued a fatwa sanctioning the invasion if Iraq.

      Let’s hear your opinions!

      • #3539513

        On the outside chance

        by mallardtooxx ·

        In reply to OK, Suppose we capture Saddam Alive

        We capture that jackhole alive I want an islamic trial. That would provide quite a specticle and it would allow Iraq the ability to strike the final blow in this war. This will work in our favor simply because he is muslim and he is Iraqi if we take him to the UN ( I will have my dissertation of the un later) he will get off and go live with his life partner chirac in paris for the rest of his days. I don’t think the world would settle for an Iraqi trial, too vindictive. I personally would like to see a new line of American products with the words FULLY TESTED ON SADDAM HUSSAIN printed on the label. Things like extra strength laxitives and super hot salsa for starters =)
        I just hope they leave windex out of it as I would have to switch to 409 and it just doesn’t taste as good and it leaves streaks!

        -duck

        • #3539447

          Another Vote for option 3!

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to On the outside chance

          OK, now assuming that Saddam is duly tried, convicted, and summarily executed, now how can his sizable assets be seized for use in rebuilding Iraq? As I’e heard it, Saddam has ~20 Billion in personal assets accumulated during his reign of terror. Ideally, these assets would be liquidated to pay for the huge costs associated with bringing Iraq’s oil industry back online and to start them on the road to economic independence.

          Saddam’s assets reside in vast volumes of shares in hundreds of companies controlled by various front companies. It stands to reason that similar arrangements have been made by his psychopathic progeny.

          I’m not sure how this situation was addressed with a similar former despot, Manual Noriega. I suspect that some of his assets were seized by the US government under the auspices of drug interdiction.

          Any accounting types out there who could shed some light on this?

      • #3539445

        Number 3.

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to OK, Suppose we capture Saddam Alive

        Yes, I would go for Number 3 also, and am in 100 per cent agreement with the reasons which you cite.

      • #3458712

        ..then we kill him.

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to OK, Suppose we capture Saddam Alive

        Drawn and quartered would be a fitting way for one of his likes to go I think..

        • #3458671

          Actually, D&Q is fairly

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to ..then we kill him.

          compassionate as Islamic executions go. I lean more toward stoning, but the rocks should be limited to those small enough to cause pain but not render him unconscious too soon. Further, the traditional bag placed over the condemned’s head should be forgone.

          Perhaps his staff rapists’ services could be brought into play before they are executed in foul manner as well.

          Personally, I think Baath part members should be forced to dig up and open 55 gallon drums in these chemical weapons sites.

      • #3538705

        Given past experience in the region

        by admin ·

        In reply to OK, Suppose we capture Saddam Alive

        we may:

        1. Say he keeps hiding and that we can’t find him.

        2. Sell him more weapons.

        3. Forgot that we all swore to kill him. I saw a “Toilet Target” of the Ayatollah the other day…. brought back memories…

        4. All of the above.

        The near recent past contingency could also include the problem of doubles in addition to vast secret cave networks….. but in time, well……………

    • #3539443

      Which Civil War?

      by generalist ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      As an American, I sometimes assume that ‘the Civil War’ refers to what is also known as ‘the War Between the States’.

      As someone with a casual interest in history, I know that there are several civil wars that have had an important part in various country’s histories.

      • #3538931

        I have never heard ….

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Which Civil War?

        of the American Civil War referred to as “The War Between The States,” so no doubt road-dog will boil me in oil and pour burning coals on me for casually referring to it as “a war to liberate the slaves” in another posting in this discussion.

        But as no war is in any manner “civilised,” the very term is self-contradictory in a sense.

        And yes of course throughout history there have been many such wars, the term “Civil War” of course being used to describe a war that is fought between different factions within a particular country.

        • #3538924

          My Uncle Jimmy calls it

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to I have never heard ….

          “the war of northern agression”. His term is based on the argument that secession was a valid option for states wishing to discontinue membership in the “united” states. Since this secession was on paper and the south did not invade the north to pursue independence, the war was for all intents and purposes, an aggression by the north.

          I happen to agree with his view in semantics, but I also believe that the result was for the best.

          As for the slavery angle, I have opined that slavery wasmerely a tool used by Lincoln to solidify the north’s resolve to stop the secession. The verbage and the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation both back that opinion up.

          As for boiling and coal pouring, I don’t get worked up over the semantics of it, so I don’t need torture to get the point across.

          For the purposes of this discussion, let us refer to the American Civil War as the Civil War. Those civil wars occurring in other nations will be geographically identified at posting, as thisforum is US based and we are the ethnocentric folks that we are.

        • #3458606

          Lincoln and the War

          by kethry127 ·

          In reply to My Uncle Jimmy calls it

          Actually for Lincoln the war was more about the right of states to secede than slavery. There is sufficient legal evidence to make the case either direction, for or against succession. While personally Lincoln felt that slavery was wrong, for most of his political career he conformed to the public notion that slavery was a necessary evil, i.e. the economy and therefore the country could not survive without it. Lincoln recognized that public opinion was shifting away from that concept to one that was closer to his personal beliefs. Did he time the Emancipation Proclamation to influence foreign opinion and unite the North, yes. How is that different that some of the speeches President Bush has made to justify this war? Lincoln’s verbiage inthe EP demonstrates his conflicting desires to allow a man his freedom, and the need for laws that benefit the many over the individual.

        • #3538701

          Not meant as Torture :)

          by admin ·

          In reply to My Uncle Jimmy calls it

          But I’d have to also point out that it has been persuavily argued that the South would have had to drop slavery anyway and was definately at least going this direction by the Civil War. Sharecroppers essentially became the new word and this too eventually died out.

          At any rate, a lot of historians are in agreement that the Cvil War being about the slavery was primarily a rallying point for the populace and was probably not the driving force behind the war.

        • #3458741

          “Civil” war

          by dcosgrove ·

          In reply to I have never heard ….

          Quite right Jul, not very civil to kill your own family members. But slvavery was just the tip of the iceberg in this war, like WMD is the tip in the Iraq war. Prior to the Civil War, several sates had decided to succede from the Union due to the Federal Government’s increasing legislation. The federal govt went to war to stop them. It is still a source of great debate as to how much controll the Federal Govt. should have over individual states and is usually at the seat of most of this countries great debates, though it is often overlooked. Abortion is a good example, many of the anti Roe v Wade crowd is actually against the Feds forcing states to allow such practises, in print however, you will get a great story about religious convictions etc. Not that it is not true, often the greater meanings are lost due to talking point and media sound bites.

    • #3538934

      Reverse Timeline

      by oldefar ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      Has anyone else noticed the irony in the advancement of “smart” weapons?

      100,000 BC – humans advance warfare from threatening displays and sounds to hitting each other with rocks

      80,000 BC – warfare advances to the use of clubs

      60,000 BC – warfare advances again as spears allow stand off attacks

      40,000 BC – spears are reduced in size but increased in velocity with early bows.

      5,000 BC – cutting instruments, swords, are introduced

      1200 AD – gunpowder allows early guns to be developed

      1945 AD – Nuclear power results in incredible explosive capability

      1980 AD – USAF advances to precision guided high velocity spears as a tank killer

      2003 AD – British develop precision guided smart bomb made of concrete

      2005 AD – Loud grunts and threatening gestures?

      • #3538913

        An interesting perspective.

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Reverse Timeline

        In some science fiction movies, disputes between countries are settled by a hand-to-hand combat between two warriors, one chosen by each country.

        The country whose gladiator conquers his opponent becames the victor; the dispute is resolved; and everyone returns to their normal routine.

        Well that method, which I think may have historical precedent, would save a lot of bloodshed and destruction.

        So let’s hope that your projection may one day become reality, and countries may settle their disputes without all the carnage and devastation that has been caused by wars during the past few millennia.

        • #3538395
          Avatar photo

          Well Julian

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to An interesting perspective.

          If you where an avid SiFi watcher I think that this has already been proposed in Blakes 7 a BBC production in the early 70’s and in Star Treck as well. So hopefully sometime in the future all conflicts will be settled in this manner.

          Untill then however I’ll just wait for something like Orac to be built and then try to gain exclusive access to it.

        • #3534372

          Wow! Someone else remember Blakes 7 !

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Well Julian

          Hi Colin. I think Blakes 7 was one of the best SiFi series that was ever produced, and I could never understand why they discontinued it after a fairly short run and have never, to my knowledge, run repeats on Sydney TV.

          Perhaps you can also remind of the name of the series (it may have even been Blakes 7) in which the spaceship’s computer was called “Zen,” and when in the final episode the ship ran into some matter which started to dissolve it, and the computer could not resolve the problem, it said: “I am sorry.”

        • #3539178
          Avatar photo

          Yes Julian it was Blakes 7

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Wow! Someone else remember Blakes 7 !

          Zen was the computer that controlled the Liberator and Orac was the computer that could access any computer in the galaxy it was built by the same person who developed the “modern” computer chips of the series. However the destruction of the Liberator was not the end of the series it did continue for several more years but instead of the Liberator they had a small ship called Scorpio {I think} who’s main computer was called slave. The one thing about the entire series was that Avon never made full use of Orac’s potential and Blake certinally didn’t either. But the series ended on a planet called Gamma Prime where Blake was reunited with Avon and Villa and a whole bunch of new characters who where bought in to replace the ones killed off.
          I actually have a copy of the full series here as I liked it that much and when they started selling some of the vedios I bought them and the ones that wern’t sold I approched the Australian Distrubiters and asked where I could obtain copies of the vedios not so far being sold, they told me where a vedio rental shop in my area had a copy of the complete series and suggested that I copy any tapes which where unavailable as there was no intention to start reselling them. I think that is called legal piracy.

          The only thing about the end of Blakes 7 is it was like the end of Vogyer it left you hanging without any real closure {poor script writing} but in the end of Blakes 7 all of them died or at least it was passed off that way as in thefinal scene Avon surronded by the Federation guards smiled and took aim then the screen went black and you heard a gun fire. There was actually no real ending to the series and I still don’t like watching the final eposide as it leaves too much up in the air and was a very poor effort at finishing the series.

        • #3539169
          Avatar photo

          However on a brighter note

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yes Julian it was Blakes 7

          They are now realising Red Dwaf on DVD and I’m told that the whole series will eventually be available. So do as Lister did in that series and tell everyone who critises you to “SMEG OFF” I don’t think that many people will actually know what it means.

      • #3538707

        Language is not a sign of intelligence.

        by admin ·

        In reply to Reverse Timeline

        I am getting more and more convinced of this.

        Because animals communicate yet lack language, many in the scientific community (and general community as an extension) label them less intelligent. Upon reflection of the actions of those with language I am increasingly convinced to apply Occum’s Razor accepting that those skipping the language step moving directly to communicating appear to hold actions resulting in a much more sane enviroment than those who do not.

        Your list is a wonderfully accurate example of this theory IMO 🙂

        • #3538668

          Point of view strongly seconded.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Language is not a sign of intelligence.

          [Of course intellect, intelligence and common sense are distinctly different qualities.]

          I support you view regarding the intelligence of animals 100 per cent. Currently on Sydney TV there is series running on “Mammals,” by David Attenbourgh (might having the spelling wrong there).

          Having lived with pets all my life (cats and dogs mostly) I have certainly concluded that they are intelligent, i.e. able to make a decision based on experience.

          I have always maintained that animals are farmore civilised than humans, as they only kill for food or to protect their territory or family.

        • #3538666

          More about animals.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Language is not a sign of intelligence.

          I could rave on forever about the various instances in which my domestic pets have displayed intelligence. But I would like to relate a very interesting story about genetically transmitted skill.

          My first “personal” dog (as distinct from family pet) was an abandoned mongrel which I named “Buster” after the Famous Five books by Enid Blyton. He grew up to be a handsome, black dog slightly larger than a cattle dog.

          Well we used to keep chooks, and set up a piece of chicken wire around a particular area of the garden so that they could “weed” it for us. As these chooks frequently escaped from the flimsy fence, Buster would get them back inside, and his method was quite astonishing. He did not chase the errant fowl, but just stood in a specific position, and the fowl made a direct line back through the gap in the enclosure.

          At about the mid-point in his life, at age 6, I took him with me on a holiday to Adelaide. At one point the road was blocked by a flock of sheep, a species he had not before encountered, and Buster stood up on the back seat of the car quivering with emotion, realising that he had discovered his destiny after six years.

          In the Barossa Valley, he saw a flock of sheep on a hillside, and singlehandedly rounded up the whole flock and sent them through a gateway.

          So complete sheep-dog skills had been transmitted to him genetically.

        • #3538370

          Sheep dogs

          by dcosgrove ·

          In reply to More about animals.

          Well Jul, I am hesitant to attribute great intelligence to most species of animal, and I even disagree about the discriminant killing. Many species eat there young or fight to the death for dominance. I will affirm you genetic theory. I had, at one tim, a pair of border collies. They are one of the most highly regarded sheep dog varieties in England and Scotland. I must say that the male was absolutely amazing. With no training at all, he was able to manage evry type of live stock, save one that I’ll get to in a minute, as well as any trained dog. He actually competed at a local sheep farm, and though slightly unorthodox, performed his tasks more rapidly and precisely than the trained dogs. I was particularly impressed with his ability to cut or cull, which is to seperate animals of similar type into groups. We had cattle, chickens, horses, sheep, goats and one duck. Jude (the collie) would seperate the animals each night including forcing the duck into the pond. His one failure was at a place where I was the night watchmen. My parents came to visit one night and thought Jude may enjoy it. He lept out of the truck quite excited by the smells and proceded throough the gates. Several seconds later he bolted back to the truck where he coward untill he was safely home again. You see the place was a zoo, and I suppose he did not know what to do with the Siberian Tiger we had rescued earlier from a horse trailer.

        • #3534381

          An over-simplistic gerneralisation.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Sheep dogs

          Yes, I would agree regarding the killing bit. Yes, I am aware that certain species eat their young, and God help the males of some species who are gobbled up by the females after mating.

          I love your story about the clever sheep dog.

          Apart from the two instances I described in my posting, on another occasion while I was taking a walk with my dog Buster, we passed a paddock where a considerable number of fowls were quitely grazing. He rounded them all up and directed them through a gateway.

        • #3534464

          What’s a “Chook”?

          by admin ·

          In reply to More about animals.

          Just curious 🙂 Nice story, thanks!

        • #3534377

          A “chook” is …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to What’s a “Chook”?

          a local colloquialism to describe that particular species which the Colonel serves up with his secret combination of herbs and spices.

        • #3534431

          Genetic intelligence

          by jkaras ·

          In reply to More about animals.

          I agree with your assessment of strange animal genetic behavior that makes us scratch our heads in amazement. The only tale of direct genetic intelligence I’ve heard of was a study conducted on an elephant. The baby elephant was never at the particular watering hole frequented by both momma and poppa. The momma was flown to a distant pet hospital to birth the baby elephant. Due to complications the momma died giving birth, after the baby was old enough to strike out on it’s own it went exactly to the same watering hole never seing it in the first place including the removal of any teaching or communication from the mother. It was so far as I’ve been told that it was the only proof of genetic intelligence in any animal, wierd.

        • #3538655

          Intelligence

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Language is not a sign of intelligence.

          I define as ability to learn and control one’s environment. This is set apart from the instinctual behaviors by problem solving ability. I agree with Jul that household pets at times surprise us by exceeding our expectations.

          I once had a cat that had learned to manipulate door knobs, an amazing feat in the absence of opposable thumbs.

          I also know of a dog that would punch the ice cube dispenser for cool treats on demand.

          They’re learning…. be afraid, be very afraid.

        • #3538392

          Churchill

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Intelligence

          Pick your pets with care –

          I believe it was the emminent PM of England who once noted something to the effect that dogs look up to you, cats look down at you, but a pig will treat you as an equal.

        • #3534384

          Related maxim.

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Churchill

          There is a similar maxim, which may have been a derivation from Churchill’s:

          Dags have masters; cats have servants.

        • #3534330

          Link to the reference

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Churchill

    • #3538839
      Avatar photo

      Just the latest breaking news

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      As of 100PM EST on Sunday 6/4/03 it has just been reported of 2 alledged cases of friendly fire the first one being in Northern Iraq where a convoy of Kurds and US Special Forces came under arial attack and where heavly bomb.

      The other one which has worse conquences was the Russian Delegation on leaving Bagdad after notifing the US Comand and getting aproval for their exit came under attack from the air it is understood at this point that the Russian Ambisator is uninjured but some of the consulate officials have been killed at present it is understood that the convoy is continuning with whats left of it. There will have to be some major arse kissing to kmake up for this mistake if it is actually what happened as at present it is too early to tell exactly who attacked the Russian Convoy.

      • #3538821

        Their destination was interesting

        by mallardtooxx ·

        In reply to Just the latest breaking news

        I think it interesting they were heading for syria. I wonder what it was going on in that meeting? and also I find it interesting that we claim no troops in the area. Iraq try to push this up a notch? or are we just letting russia know we know whats up?

        -duck

      • #3538809

        Precision Bombing !

        by donthecat ·

        In reply to Just the latest breaking news

        Probably Bush wants to start THE WORLD WAR III. Next they may probably bomb the Big-Ben; that would really be “Friendly Fire”

      • #3534542

        re-action

        by www.boy_frasco ·

        In reply to Just the latest breaking news

        i think, war is very ungentlemanlike behaviour of such head of states {allied}. all over the world denounce {so to speak} violence of invading a country that’s home for a mass destruction issue, well, civilians of iraq are the most affected to thesesiege, so? is there’s any human right issue here? i think so. UN has the power anyway but it’s toothless and sad to say…

    • #3458679

      The scoop on Tariq Azziz

      by lordinfidel ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      I finally figured it out.

      It’s not that Tariq Azziz is living in a fantasy world or trying to mislead the Iraqi people with lies.

      He is acutually auditioning for the various networks.

      A little know fact about Tariq, he has always wanted to be a stand-up comic. He joined the Iraqi regime in hopes of fufilling that dream.

      Now that that the regime is poised to fall. Tariq will be needing a new job.

      His publicist, speaking on anomynity, said that “Several Major networks have shown positive interest on having Tariq host his own late night show. There is also negotiations for a 1-hour standup on comedy central.”

      And as the troops keep getting closer, his jokes keep getting better.

      When asked sunday why he was not insidethe Information Ministry giving a conference he said, “It is so stuffy inside and such a beautiful day. I love the smell of napalm in the morning”.

      Pure comedic genius.

      • #3458672

        Error in news report

        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to The scoop on Tariq Azziz

        I apologize for the error. It was mis-reported that Tariq Azziz was the information minister.

        Mr. Azziz is the Deputy Prime Minister for Iraq.

        Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf is currently the Information Minister.

        I regret any confusion that thismay have caused.

      • #3458650

        I Can See It Now…

        by dave4e2open ·

        In reply to The scoop on Tariq Azziz

        Tariq gets a new show on UPN, “Shoot the Breeze, with Aziz”. Co-hosted by Geraldo ‘Line in the Sand’ Rivera.
        Opening guest; Peter ‘is my career over yet’ Arnett.

      • #3458640

        Peter Arnett

        by road-dog ·

        In reply to The scoop on Tariq Azziz

        Could be his Ed McMahon. Possible first guests could be Susan Sarandon and Natalie Maines.

        I’m not sure how he’ll do against Leno, because the best humor has at least a grain of truth in it. His current fodder is so divorced from reality as to make his jokes as inscrutable to his audience as Dennis Miller’s material is to Carrot Top fans.

        • #3534463

          Dennis Miller :)

          by admin ·

          In reply to Peter Arnett

          Why is some of our best political commentary disguised as comedy these days? Dennis Miller is amazing on a good night 🙂 I really appreciate Bill Maher greatly as well, although he may sometimes include a bit to many grains of truth that don’t require as much scrutiny as Miller 🙂

        • #3534449

          I can’t stand Bill Maher

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Dennis Miller :)

          He’s tedious as all get out. What really gets to me is his snide and condescending attitiude that he projects.

          Miller would be funnier and more profound after a 3 day bender and 2 hours sleep with a 102 degree fever and 2 rounds with Mike Tyson than Maher is on his best day.

        • #3534413

          I rely on Jon Stewart

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to Dennis Miller :)

          I found his commentary timely and accurate.

          The exposes are always informative and on the point.

    • #3534391

      to quote Christopher Titus:

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to The War Is In Iraq.

      “Let the Healing Begin”

      http://tinyurl.com/93oi

      One of Saddam’s fedayeen “troops” gets a well deserved ass beating at the hands (fists) of the citizens of Basra, Iraq.

Viewing 7 reply threads