Intensive Purposes » 2003

” The 30 original countries in the Coalition of the Willing, as listed on the State Department Web site, include Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

The defense secretary said that the Operation Iraq Freedom coalition is “large and growing” and “not unilateral action as is being characterized in the media.”

“Indeed, the coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991,” Rumsfeld said.

Many countries have committed combat and combat support forces, Rumsfeld said, while others are contributing other things — “access, basing, refueling, force protection, intelligence sharing, and the use of airspace. Still others have pledged to participate in stability operations and post-Saddam reconstruction efforts.”

“I think it’s a little disingenuous to compare the number of countries willing to send soldiers into battle in 1991 with the number of countries who are willing to put their names on a list in 2003,” a retired senior military officer who served in Operation Desert Storm told Salon, declining to be named. Some 32 countries provided troops in 1991, compared with three this time around.

”

from Salon.com
1984 just 20 years later. -pi

4 Comments » Add

I was bored so i posted

Small earthquakes and tremors

pives

March 20th, 2003

Small Tremors were felt all along the US east coast last night. At first they were thought to be some sort of geological phenomenon. Later, it was realized that it was simply the framers rolling in their graves.

No Comments » Add

News

War begun

jlacivita

March 19th, 2003

apparently a few minutes after i posted, the bombing campaign started on iraq.

fucked up.

3 Comments » Add

Uncategorized

Leaflets

jlacivita

March 19th, 2003

These are some of the leaflets that we’ve been dropping over Iraq. I can’t decide if this is propaganda aimed at iraqis or americans.

if we do half as good a job of fucking y’all up as we did last time, the survivors of your family are sure as hell going to need you.

(more…)

1 Comment » Add

Propoganda

Arm Wrestling instead of going to court

lophat

March 12th, 2003

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/10/offbeat.nz.wrestle/index.html

1 Comment » Add

Uncategorized

Freedom Fries!?

jlacivita

March 11th, 2003

ok, this has got to be the lamest thing i’ve heard in my entire life. The cafeteria at congress has renamed “french fries” and “french toach” to “freedom fries” and “freedom toast,” in order to slap france in the face.

not only is this wicked* fucking petty, but its also very ironic, since neither of these dishes came from France, but are from the land of the grease and the home of the lard, USA.

I’m sure France is actually happy that those horrible sample’s of american food no longer bear their country’s name.

Actually, i think french fries were invented in Belgium, and i forget where french toast came from, but you can thank us for over doing it and making them both staples of the standard diet.

I think i’ll start calling them “Fatah Fries” and “Dictator Toast”.

^{*I’m from the Boston area, in case you didn’t know}

10 Comments » Add

Link, Funny, Propoganda

10 Responses to “Freedom Fries!?”

underdog says:
March 12th, 2003 at 12:17 am
http://www.belgianfries.com/index.cfm?Module=histor1
pives says:
March 12th, 2003 at 12:35 am
Hey Now! That’s enough! I’ll not have you disparage my motherland! The home of Lard is Great Britain thank you very much.
jlacivita says:
March 12th, 2003 at 12:42 am
Bah! I forgot you were a Brit when i made your account!
Del says:
March 12th, 2003 at 5:19 pm
Actually, French Toast does come from France. They invented it for the same reason as French Onion Soup. During the reign of one great dictator or another the French found further uses for stale bread.

This action - renaming the fries - has further significance from history, where we renamed sauerkraut “freedom kraut” and some other German foods. However, we were actually at war with Germany, so, although still completely ridiculous, at least we had a reason to avoid thing German (I really like Germany and Germans, so no offense to anyone)now we’re renaming food based on support for a crap war? Yeah, the whole thing is dumb.

I’m waiting for them to start banning images of the Eifel Tower.

BTW: you heard about the lawyer arrested in New York for wearing a peace T-shirt in a mall, no?
jlacivita says:
March 12th, 2003 at 5:38 pm
yeah i heard about the lawyer who was arrested. But did you know this part: the lawyer was with his son, both of them wearing a peace shirt. when security asked them to remove the shirts the some complied, and his dad resisted.

kids these days, no fucking conviction!
pives says:
March 13th, 2003 at 12:53 am
man I hope we knock down the Statue of Liberty and send that back too! we haven’t obeyed those words inscribed on it for a good 80 years anyway.

PS. Find the words yourself with a simple googling. Something about your wretched and huddled masses.

PSS Sarcasm people
Del says:
March 13th, 2003 at 6:13 pm
Sarcasm really doesn’t work when you need to point it out, pives.
pives says:
March 13th, 2003 at 6:27 pm
caught you! I specifically put that in thinking underdog would say something about it

thanks

pives
underdog says:
March 14th, 2003 at 1:01 pm
Pives, do you really think I’m that reflexively stupid? I mean jesus, I do actually engage my brain every once in a while.
underdog says:
March 14th, 2003 at 1:07 pm
Oh, and we’ve always been very restrictive of immigrants, not just the past 80 years. Excepting the importation of slave labor, have a good look at all the immigrations laws erected in response to the Jewish, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc immigration over the past 150 years. We still continue to impose highly restrictive limits for immigration on people. That is one blotch I’d like to see rectified.

Bluetooth

jlacivita

March 9th, 2003

I never really thought of the possibilies of bluetooth, except as a wireless data transfer protocal.

this article goes over some pretty cool stuff that seems mildly futuristic, but can be done now. Interesting read, and entirely non political for a change.

peace out… doh!

5 Comments » Add

Technology

Pro War?!?

yc115

March 8th, 2003

What if the war with Iraq is a good thing? What if in the long run the number of lives lost is lower and we do bring stability to the middle east? What would we do about Sadam if we did not move on Iraq? Are the Arabic countries better off without us intervening in Iraq?
(more…)

9 Comments » Add

Politics

9 Responses to “Pro War?!?”

jlacivita says:
March 9th, 2003 at 5:02 am
I don’t think being against the war means that you don’t (necessarily) think anything good could come out of it.

I’m sure there are many people who have issues they care about that might be addressed by the war.

The thing for me, though, is that there are countries out there doing the things Bush accuses Iraq of, to a much greater extent. Hell, there are even country making nuclear threats. I’m not saying we should go to war with them either, i’m just saying the choice of Iraq seems highly political to me.

I might even be less opposed to it (although not in favor of it) if the Bush administration would come out and say “These are our real reasons… they aren’t that honorable or heroic, but those are our reasons.” and just put it flat out for us, instead of insulting the american public with this non sequitur neo-christian-patriotic bullshit, unsupported or refuted claims and half-truths.

alas, its 5am, and i need sleep.
underdog says:
March 9th, 2003 at 9:19 am
I know you guys are all smart so can we please dispense with the notion that just because someone is in support of Bush’s policies, they are somehow less intelligent or informed? Could it be possible that these people have arrived at a different conclusion based on a similar level of intelligence?

I don’t want to sound like I’m whining here, but I get enough of that crap up here. “Oh, you like Bush and support his dirty war? Then you OBVIOUSLY are ignorant and haven’t thought through all the issues.” And no, I’m not making that up. That seems to be the prevalent attitude among the anti-war crowd. It’s really disheartening to hear otherwise intelligent people make remarks such as “Bush and his cronies are all dumbasses.” and expect that to be an acceptable debating point.
jlacivita says:
March 9th, 2003 at 3:25 pm
underdog: quit giving us the gravy of analysis, and serve out some of the meat of your opinions! Why do you or do you not support the war, for example.

What do you think of the rambles i typed at 5am last night?
GlassJar says:
March 9th, 2003 at 5:28 pm
The entire point of my article was to point out that there is intelligence and respectability on both sides of the fence. I hope everyone got that? but if not there is this comment to emphasize it!

I honestly feel that the war on Iraq is misplaced and oil driven. There is far more evidence pointing at this then at some moral guidance. As Jeremy pointed out the issue with North Korea is far more deserving of our attention. As Phil pointed out Bushes insistent policy on Iraq is not economically viable. As I will now point out Bush is not acting out of compassion for the people of Iraq. If anything it would appear that his eye is on a prize that looks something like this:

1) Economic stability in the Middle east for the purposes of creating new markets.
2) Economic stability for the safety of America?s short term energy needs.
3) Finishing Daddy?s war.

I know number three is nearly without credentials but It still seems fairly obvious to most conservatives I know that we are ?going back to finish what we started?.

So let us hear it Underdog. Why should we respect the war on Iraq? My ears are more open then you probably will ever believe.
underdog says:
March 10th, 2003 at 1:14 am
Gonna try and roll everything into one big ball of thoughts. I tried to keep this from rambling, but there are so many angles to this and it’s late and I’m tired. It’s long and will probably piss some of you off; not because I attack anyone, far from it, but because my opinions run just about 180 counter to your own. Most of you have made up your mind on this issue, as have I. I see myself as having about as much chance of changing your minds as you have of changing mine. If you can handle that, then read on.

If this war is about oil, and Bush doesn’t care about the people in Iraq, and Bush doesn’t care about the relevance of the UN, and the economy won’t do well with all this war talk… why is he continuing to press on?

Why doesn’t he just cut a deal with Hussein? Just buy all of Iraq’s produced oil at a bargain price in exchange for American protection? Maybe even take on Iran as a favor? Since Bush doesn’t care about the Iraqi people, then he and his cronies will not have a moral qualm with this, will they? With all this talk about war, and the economy on the ropes, why not just halt it so that the jitters can subside and oil prices can go down since that’s all he really cares about? If he really didn’t care what the UN thought, why has he been so intent on getting the UN onboard?

This last point question is something I want to elaborate on. And that’s about the relevance of the UN. The fact that Hussein has floated UN resolutions what, 17 times now over the past 12 years is beyond dispute. What is worrisome to me is that the UN has not done anything about this. It keeps threatening “severe consequences” yet has repeatedly extended the deadlines it has set. This, to me, makes the UN seem like nothing more than an ineffectual organization because it is lacking in the resolve to put some muscle behind its words. A League of Nations, yet it doesn’t need to be. Am I being illogical here?

It seems to me that, politically and diplomatically at least, Bush would be better off just leaving Hussein alone… finding some way to bow out gracefully and avoid war. Yet, he’s not and this, to me, points to something deeper than a simple “war for oil” argument. Especially when it’s easy to see that the costs will probably dominate the profits that people who make this argument seem to think Bush and co will reap.

Continuing on, the thing that I do not understand is this… most of the world agrees that Hussein is a threat both to the region and to the Iraqi people, not to mention the Kurds, but no one has offered any alternative solutions to dealing with him short of more inspections or containment. That brings up another point that people have missed lately. I’ve seen this slogan “Inspections work. War won’t.” One problem here seems to be a disagreement of what the inspectors are there to do. They’re not there to disarm Hussein. They’re there to make sure that Hussein is disarming. A slight change in wording, but important. The inspectors shouldn’t have to play the shell game they’ve been playing with Hussein the past 12 years. Now recently, Hussein has made some token gestures at disarmament, but nothing substantial. And no one, to my knowledge has asked this question, he’s disarming NOW weapons that he supposedly didn’t have before… and these are weapons that the inspectors found. Does anyone really think that he can be trusted to come clean on the rest of the discrepancies in what he has declared were destroyed and what has been found already? Didn’t he also authorize the use of chemical+bio weapons in the event of a US attack… weapons that he supposedly doesn’t have?

It seems to me that inspections only work when they’re backed up by a credible threat of the use of force. If Hussein thinks he can jerk the UN along like he’s done for the past 12 years because the US is not serious about following through with its thread of an attack, then the inspections won’t work. You can almost guarantee that this would be the case because it’s taken him so long to make even the few token gestures that he’s made in the past couple of weeks.

Now, as to the NK situation, yeah. It’s bad, and I think Bush should be more visible on that front. But I also don’t think that he should ease up the pressure on Iraq. There are a couple reasons that I’m thinking might be reasons for how he has handled the situation with Korea. 1) It is a delay tactic. Once Hussein is out of power and our presence is established in Iraq for the rebuilding of the country, we can turn our sights on NK. 2) NK ALREADY has the nukes. That means that the playing field has changed because the risk of waging war just got that much greater. There’s much better analysis/theory as to why Bush has a different strategy for dealing with NK here:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-01-06-1.html

Getting back to what alternative solutions exist for dealing with Hussein. What are they? Does anyone have any solid alternatives to what is going on now that will get rid of the Hussein problem?

I’m going to be upfront here, not that I haven’t been before… but one reason I support what Bush has been doing is because 1) Hussein is a threat, perhaps not to us, but definitely to his neighbors, 2) the crap that his people have to put with is absurd and unfair. Yes, I know other maniacs are just as horrible and ruthless but in my mind the difference with Hussein’s regime is that there is actually an opening to get at Hussein through the UN. There isn’t that opening with other countries… not yet. Another problem is that, to me, using this argument is akin to saying “We shouldn’t arrest and punish this convicted murderer because there are others that we haven’t caught yet.” 3) I don’t want to see the UN made irrelevant because it is incapable or unwilling to enforce its own resolutions. 4) I do, actually believe there is a moral argument to be made for removing Hussein from power. I think you could, and should, be able to make that argument for any number of regimes. I don’t think that is an argument against war at all.

But most of all, if you accept that something, not necessarily militarily, needs to be done about Hussein, then what are your available options that will help avoid war while also dealing with Hussein? I haven’t heard ANY that I think have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.
pives says:
March 11th, 2003 at 4:42 pm
Ok, to clear up any “possible” misconceptions about all my arguments so far. Let me tell you all where I am coming from.

I don’t have a problem if the world decides to invade Iraq through the UN or some other venue. Cool, kill him, nationalize the oil for the Iraqi people all that stuff. Yippee one more evil dictator gone.

i do have a problem with the US going in unitlaterally. Or the US and 2 other token countries. I even have a problem if the UN passes a resolution to go in and the vote is close.

All these arguments are assuming the bush go it alone strat. As i said above, if the world+US goes, i’m fine.

Also, let me say this, so that you can keep hearing it as your read on. I’m very idealistic in these arguments. But i believe while you can’t always live your ideals, you must strive for them! IF we strive for our ideals, we might even reach them.

This is why:
1) the US will spend all its political currency with Europe, Russia and other “developing nations” for one silly war whose benefits haven’t clearly been made (This will be true if the UN doesn’t nearlu unamimously pass a resolution). This will have economica and political repercussions for the US for decades. I also don’t doubt that it will create new terrorists.

2) I do not trust the US govt at all to administer a postwar reconstruction of Iraq. There is absolutely no evidence that the US is capable of distributing justice and democracy to another nation. Don’t even try the Germany, Japan WW2 angle! Those are exceptions, they certainly don’t prove the rule and I might add that the Marshall plan was drawn up by the US and her European allies! A go it alone reconstruction will not have world insight!

3)this reason is just fun for me. The US says it will bring democracy to Iraq, yet it can’t even particpate in the global democracy that is the UN?!? This is a whole do as i say not as i do thing. Democracy does not mean the most powerful nation gets to do what it wants. That’s the price. So work through the UN!

4) Resolution 1441 is what we got the world to sign on to. That resolution (and the problem that france, Germany, and Russia have with doing anything else) says that it is up to the Inspectors to decide when Iraq is not cooperating. so let them do their job. I don’t think their is any reason for them to help Saddam. So when they say ok, Iraq is not disarming, then the security council can convene on going in. I’m sorry Governor Bush’s timetable doesn’t accomodate it. Too bad! This is democracy, it’s not always easy. We got Inspectors in the resolution, that’s the agreement. so sit back, let them do their job, keep the troops deployed around if you want to help convince Iraq to disarm. but that’s it, no more conversation til the Inspectors say otherwise. Meanwhile you can pay attention to the economy or debate your tax cut. Or do any 1 of those thousand other things the President is supposed to do.

5) The doctrine of Preemption is the greatest threat to global social evolution and peace ever. Preemption goes against all the progress we’ve made as a race of humans since WW2. If other countries were to follow our example we’d have India attacking Pakistan. Everyone attacking Israel, NK attacking Japan, or the other way around. It’s ridiculous. We would never accept preemption on a personal level, so why accept it at the Nation-State level?

Ok, that’s enough. Time to eat.
pives says:
March 12th, 2003 at 12:33 am
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — A U.S. diplomat resigned from government service
Monday in protest at President Bush’s preparations to attack Iraq, the
second to do so in less than a month.

John H. Brown, who joined the U.S. diplomatic corps in 1981 and served in
London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and Moscow, said in a letter to
Secretary of State Colin Powell made available to the media: “I cannot in
good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq.

“Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the
unjustified use of force. The president’s disregard for views in other
nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an
anti-American century,” the diplomat added.
pives says:
March 13th, 2003 at 12:55 am
Man! Still no more comments Txillardegi’s laptop is broke
underdog says:
March 13th, 2003 at 2:17 am
I’ll get to it. My school isn’t known for giving people alot of breathing room.

Entertainment for Morons

jlacivita

March 7th, 2003

So a while ago, my friend sent me a link to that internet cartoon “Home Star Runner”

It seemed pretty funny, so i posted it here. Little did i know how many fools on the internet search for “home star runner” and are thus lead to this site.

Not only are most of the comments left by these visitors composed in a way to conjure up visions of retarded monkeys trying to be cool, but it also seems that every fool and his cousin thinks Strong Bad is the coolest Home Star Runner character.

I mean Strong Bad is cool and all. But why do all you suckas gutta be like “oh my god, he’s awesome, he’s the greatest.” Especially on a months old post on some random website, when 10 people have already made the same comment before you. This reminds me of when it was hip to say “Kramer is my favorite character, Seinfeld is lame.” It’s cool if you really really think that, but most of the people who said it didn’t stop to think that Kramer wouldn’t be all that funny by himself. It takes a whole bunch of characters to make a show work. Why do you all have to just appreciate the characters that are all laughs and have no subtly or depth?

For example. Homestar’s girlfriend is shaped like a broom. She’s also very ditzy. There’s plenty of subtle sexist humor there, and thats the best kind. I mean subtle humor, not sexist humor, but you knew that.

You guys should all go watch “The Family Guy*” for a good dose of subtle and blunt humor. That show has to be the best at mixing the two, that I’ve ever seen. Although, i don’t know jack about current TV shows, since i don’t watch any (”yeah, but you do know that there’s invention called television, and on it there are these things called shows!?” I said it for you, so you dumb random people that find this site won’t get to feel cool by misquoting a popular movie.)

You non-thinkers are the reason that the entertainment industry is able to peddle such bland gravy and get away with it. Anything funny or new or thought provoking won’t make it to the air, or will be cancelled shortly after, a la Family Guy. By the way, I have a theory that the episodes i’ve been watching are actually the ones that aired in the UK, because there is stuff on there that i can’t believe got by the american censors. But hey, thats a good reason for the UK to exist. So that the “real” versions of english language entertainment will be out there somewhere for me to find. Come to think of it, I got my Stokes album from amazon.uk, too. I guess if they just get rid of that turncoat Blair then i will let them stick around when i’m king. (Destro, i’ll be contacting you soon about that arms deal we spoke of)

* Warning: I am not responsible for any laws you break to watch this show, as it is no longer being broadcast, and can only be obtained by downloading it, buying a region free DVD player, or moving too England. The first of which is illegal, the second will probably be one day- if the entertainment industry has its way, and the third should be illegal.

5 Comments » Add

Rant, When I'm King

The Economics of impending doom

pives

March 6th, 2003

Well, we’ve hit a lot of the moral issues surrounding a war with Iraq on this site. So I thought I would change it up and approach this thing from an individual capitalist perspective.

If you haven’t noticed, the US economy is in the crapper. Unemployment is at 20 year high (my googling couldn’t come up with a URL, but this is the number i’ve heard tossed around from foxnews to npr). There is no end in site.

My opinion is that this economy WILL NOT turn around until the looming war question is settled. Companies don’t like to invest during a period of economic uncertainty, and neither do individual investors. Now some will argue that the war will create money. This “could” be true. IF the war goes according to plan. Yey! 2 years of economic recovery for the US. But what if it doesn’t?

The longer Governor Bush focuses on war with Iraq instead of economic stimulus the longer yours truly will sucking off the taxpayer tit. along with 10% of all the other Americans. btw, true unemployment is actually higher. Because the dept. of Labor does not include those that their unemployment benefits ran out and still haven’t found a job.

So I don’t really have a lot of opinions about all this as much as i’d like others to chime in on the economic damage that this potential war is doing to the US and world economy as a whole.

6 Comments » Add

Rant, Politics, Money for Nothing, I was bored so i posted

Pages

Archive for March, 2003

49 Responses to “A Sign”

4 Responses to “FYI Coalition of the Willing”

3 Responses to “War begun”

One Response to “Leaflets”

One Response to “Arm Wrestling instead of going to court”

10 Responses to “Freedom Fries!?”

5 Responses to “Bluetooth”

9 Responses to “Pro War?!?”

5 Responses to “Entertainment for Morons”

6 Responses to “The Economics of impending doom”