id
int64 5.11k
4.34M
| gender
stringclasses 2
values | age
int64 13
48
| topic
stringclasses 40
values | sign
stringclasses 12
values | date
stringlengths 2
18
| text
stringlengths 4
790k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Another question, and I'm only trying to understand: So we're essentially at a party (the world) where not all the people (nations) are dancing (joining our economic vision), so we're turning up the music louder and louder (cramming our economic solution down their throats) until either all people (nations) are dancing (just like us) or they are whimpering in the corner (forgotten [central Africa]) or under our direct command (colonized [Iraq] by our forces)? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | i have had the flu since friday night. i have thrown up, had chills, back aches, horrible headaches, and overall dizziness and fever. right now, i'm sweating and about ready to throw up my food from last night. the only thing, honestly i have tried everything else, that has truly helped me is pot. pain killers can't seem to get rid of the aches and the nausea is still there. but when i smoke pot, the nausea is gone, my pains are gone, and i can actually eat. and believe it or not, i feel less dizzy when i'm stoned. and no, it doesn't feel like a normal high at all. it just makes me feel - more normal - able to function. so does someone wish to explain to me why medicinal marijuana is illegal? urlLink http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/11/05/drugwar/index.html - just some extra info. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Bear in mind that I am not at all articulate about such things, but I have to say that I don't like the image presented by CK's argument. I feel as though America, if it takes the approach that CK presents, would become imperialist bullies. I feel like we're the the snot-nosed brats of the world, stomping and whining about how we want everything to be our way or the highway. And I fear that the global community will become fed up with our audacious attitudes. For about ten minutes after 9/11, we were the whole world's sweet wounded child. Now we're the world's screaming bratty embarrassment. *shrug* |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I'm still not understanding. Someone please explain to me why addressing the deed and not the reason is safer and more effective than simultaneously addressing the deed and the reason. Since the former is what I see my country currently doing, I would be delighted to be convinced of the strategy's wisdom. Thanks in advance. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Ahem. Sorry I'm late for the discussion, but I had to clean up the small flood in my basement first. It might not surprise any of you that I have some thoughts about the upcoming conflict and the issues surrounding it. Let me apologize in advance, as this is going to be long as crap, but bear with me (I've been thinking a lot about these issues lately -- time is about the only thing my unemployed ass can afford these days). First, though, I have but one word for the way the Bush Administration has handled foreign policy since the collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan: Amateurish . If you don't like that one, here're some other choices: sloppy, slapdash, clumsy, crude, slipshod, inept, bungling, or incompetent. The Model UN Conference that I attended in 1992 at Princeton would have produced more elegant diplomacy than that of the leadership of the current administration. I have been continuously amazed and dismayed at the ineptitude with which this administration has conducted foreign policy. Bush II sold his soul (with the tacit approval of the Republican National Committee) to the conservatives in 2000 in order to win South Carolina and staunch the grassroots support that was propelling John McCain to the Republican nomination. Woe to the future of our country as a result, for the very same conservatives that now have a hotline to the Oval Office (or perhaps more importantly, to Carl Rove's office) and they are giving our reputation as thorough a drubbing as Clinton did back in 92-93. The ham-handed and despicably snotty attitude with which this administration has approached the rest of the world has directly lead to the worst crisis in NATO history and an intransigent and increasingly hostile UN. I was relieved to see that I wasn't the only one of this opinion last Sunday -- read this article: Forceful Tactics Catch Up With U.S. Turns out that the US is only reaping what it was sown over the past 2 years, starting with our disgraceful behavior re: the Kyoto Accord and going downhill from there. (Some of you might remember my support for our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty -- mind you, I still think that we did the right thing -- just in a terribly wrong fashion....) So, registering my strong, nay intense, disapproval for the manner in which Mr. Bush II conducts his foreign policy, let me now tell you why going to war is not only right, but in the best interests of the US in the long-run: lubing the wheels of regime change in Iraq means the difference between John and Johnathan's nightmarish and ultimately impossible proposal of utterly annihilating all extremists in order to live peacefully, and influencing the world in such a positive manner that extremists will be relegated to John's desert, where they can do little harm. But first we must set aside all of the emotional and bleeding heart baggage in order to discuss realpolitik in a form Cardinal Richelieu would immediately recognize and approve. So, let's set aside the fact that war is destructive and killing people is wrong -- that's a given. Set aside the wrong-headed argument that this is about oil -- 1) unless you are living in a cabin in the wilderness without electricity and any modern convenience, you must accept the fact that oil is the lifeblood of our modern society and therefore securing a stable and cheap source incontrovertibly benefits all of us; and 2) If oil was on Bush II's mind, we would invade Venezuela, whose crisis has posed a more serious oil problem for the United States than Iraq ever could. Set aside the fact that this whole thing with Iraq feels like 'You beat up on my dad by defying him, so I'm gonna beat up on you...' -- since the hawks of Bush II's administration were all veterans of Bush I, we can assume that that certainly had a lot to do with choosing Iraq as the next target after the Taliban folded like a cheap card table. Johnathan, the reason you noticed the link between terrorism and Iraq has been downplayed is because there isn't one. Regardless of all of these issues, there are compelling reasons for us to go to war in the desert again. So let's talk geopolitics: On the day the war ends (and I'm not taking a big leap by assuming that we win), then the entire geopolitics of the region will be redefined . Every country bordering Iraq will find not the weak formations of the Iraqi army along their frontiers, but US and British troops. We will be able to reach into any country in the region with covert forces based in Iraq, and we could threaten overt interventions as well. We will not need permission from regional hosts for the use of facilities, so long as either Turkey or Kuwait will permit transshipment into Iraq. In short, a U.S. victory will change the entire balance of power in the region, from a situation in which the US must negotiate its way to war, to a situation where we are free to act as we will. If we consider the post-Iraq war world, it is no surprise that the regional response ranges from publicly opposed/privately not displeased to absolute opposition. Certainly, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran (and Jordan, to a lesser extent) have nothing to gain from a war that will be shaped entirely by the United States. Kuwait and Turkey are the other countries bordering Iraq, and they are in the US camp already. Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been banking on European resistance to a war to prevent it. It remains to be seen if that can happen -- personally, I think that Bush II will pull the trigger no matter what the UN decides in the end. And the rest of NATO has already come out in support -- magnifying the split within the European Union between the big nations and the small (Germany and France vs. everyone else). And don't even get me started on my opinions about why France is opposing the war.... The European split -- and the real possibility that France and Germany ultimately will endorse war in some way in order to reap the not insubstantial benefits of rebuilding Iraq -- mean that war cannot be prevented. Saddam will not abdicate or be overthrown until the war is well under way. Therefore, it is highly likely that the war will take place, the US will occupy Iraq, and that the map of the Middle East will change profoundly. The Bush II administration is well-aware that its increased presence in the region will result in greater hostility. However, we should view this rising cost as acceptable so long as Washington is able to redefine the behavior of countries neighboring Iraq. In the long run, though, geopolitical power will improve US security interests in spite of growing threats. To be more precise, Islamic hostility at a certain level as a given, and does not regard an increase in that hostility as materially affecting its interests. The conquest of Iraq will not be a minor event in history: It will represent the introduction of a new imperial power to the Middle East and a redefinition of regional geopolitics based on that power. The US will move from being an outside power influencing events through coalitions, to a regional power that is able to operate effectively on its own. Most significant, countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria will be living in a new and quite unpleasant world. And, perhaps more importantly, it will offer the opportunity to create a democratic state in the Middle East that actually works. A place where democracy and capitalism are afforded the opportunity to grow and flourish. And this, more than any other reason, is why it's important for us replace Saddam by any means necessary. Because this gets down to the root of the issue, as JS has urged us to do. It comes down to this: Where there is globalization and economic opportunity, John and Johnathan's extremists are forced into the proverbial desert. Where there is economic stagnation and political repression, and the extremists not only operate in the open, but they are a powerful force in that society. So, rebuilding Iraq a la Germany after WWII is not only good morality, but it is solid strategic vision. If you have the chance, get your hand on a copy of the 1 March edition of Esquire Magazine. Inside, you will find an article written by Thomas Barnett entitled: 'The Pentagon's New Map. It Explains Why We're Going To War, And Why We'll Keep Going To War.' If you cannot find this article, I have an electronic version I will be glad to email you. It is very important that everyone reads and understands this new paradigm -- remember that the world is an inherently more dangerous place since the end of the Cold War, and this theory goes a long, long way to help us to understand the situation in the world and our place in it. Here are the first couple of paragraphs, which mirror my thoughts exactly: 'Let me tell you why military engagement with Saddam Husseins regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good. When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization. That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Husseins outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence. The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome: Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not. Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and most important the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.' Let me know if anyone wants to read the rest of this article its incredibly enlightening. So JS and John it doesnt have to come down to either/or. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Sadly, I think you are right in the solution of wiping all extremists out, but that will not happen, nor should it. There must be some way to get throught the hatred that prevents them from accepting anything but their total victory. If OBL wants to sit in the middle of the desert and preach hatred of the Zionists and their lackeys (USA), I have no problem with that until the hatred crosses the line and becomes violent action. Then, I see it as a simple matter of survival. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Clarification: I do not define appeasement by addressing an attacker's complaints while simultaneously exacting wholesale and decisive retaliation for that individual's attack, which is the argument I am making. If, however, there is no way at all to address the attacker's concerns, I argue that there is no option but to wipe out the entire ideology. Because the ideological warrior cannot be deterred, ever, as long as he or she exists. I hesitate to use the word 'ideology,' because a counter-argument could be made re: Communism, which one could argue was a deterred ideology -- but I feel any attempt to compare radical Muslim fundamentalism to Communism is foolish, so I'll let it stand. Waiting out a political, economic, and social movement is far different from waiting out an opponent who is following the words of the one and only Creator of all that exists. It sounds as if those who support reacting to the deed without addressing the reason, do so because there is, in fact, no way to address the reason. Since I would rather not see a future in which We and They are locked in violent conflict until the end of our species, it seems to me that within these restrictions, we must wipe out all violent Muslims, everywhere, and strike them from the historical record. Given these restrictions, that seems to be the only remaining option for a lasting peace for this and future generations. Please, someone convince me that there is hope to be found in reacting to the deed and not the reason. The argument and consequences as I understand them reveal to my eyes a future of unending violence, bloodshed, and death upon death upon death. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | angie - would you check your email? i have a question for you. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | And you posted twice, too! :) Missed you today...hope you're feeling better soon, hon... |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | hey guys - i had the flu today - threw up twice! hurrah! sorry i missed the game. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | hey guys - i had the flu today - threw up twice! hurrah! sorry i missed the game. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | If I am understanding you correctly, you think the heart of their hatred for the USA is related to our support for Israel and the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia. That may be, but there are problems with simplisticly removing the sources of their anger. Keep in mind that Israel was founded by the UN in 1947 or 1948. Yes, the existing inhabitants (now known as Palestinians, though there was not a Palestine at that time)were forced out of their homes, but you could (and I am very hesitant to do so because of the obvious implications to the US concerning Native American Indians) point out that the Israelis were driven out of that land that had been theirs for 2000 years. Additionally, the occupied territories were occupied because the Arab countries have attacked Israel 2 or 3 times and lost. Israel took those lands to offer additional protection from future attack. I could be wrong, but I think that technically, a state of war still exists between Israel and Syria, meaning that Israel would be idiotic to surrender the Golan Heights (very strategic land) back to Syria. In the ultimate irony, the radical Palestinians and Arabs want to drive the Israelis into the sea and exterminate them. Do you recall the fighting in Kosovo a few years ago? The Serbs (Christians) were trying to wipe out the Kosovars (Muslims). Kind of ironic that we (USA/NATO) stopped the ethnic cleansing there, yet religiously related people want us to turn a blind eye and let them wipe out Jews. As for Saudi Arabia, we may be 'spoiling' sacred lands in the eyes of some Muslims, but we are there at the request and with the permission of the Saudi Royal Family (government). If the extermists want us gone that bad, then they should petition for a change in their governments policy. We don't generally stay where the government does not want us to be. Caving in to the actions of terrorists will set a very bad example for future events. What happens when the hypothetical pure Islamic nation existis, stretching from Tunisia to Pakistan and Turkey to Sudan, and they then decide that their Eurpoean or Indian neighbors are living the corrupt lives of infidels. Given the past effectiveness of their terroristic activities, they will try them again, seeing weakness. As with most things, there are no simple answers, and I have no grandiose ideas. But, appeasement does not work. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | If we don't have anything the fire ants want, they go away. Eliminate the reason. If we want to get our Retaliation Jones on, eliminate the reason while simultaneously taking out a few nests. But if we don't eliminate the reason, we have to exterminate all fire ants, everywhere, for all time, faster than they can respond. Another argument that has been added to the original one: terrorists act out of hatred of liberty. For crying out loud. They act out because they want something to change, somewhere. We may agree or disagree with that thing they want changed, and we can certainly be angry about their method, but don't avoid the issue by saying they're just mean people. There is such a thing as kleptomania, and I can imagine a thrill in the act, but in general people steal things because they want them. All the alarms and police in the world won't stop thieves until everyone has what they want. Of course, meeting everyone's material desires is impossible. But we can *combine* deterrents (police, locks, alarms) with strategies that target the cause: we can educate people in how to get jobs, and show them the rewards of individual work -- both in material wealth and individual pride. Our country does fairly well with this; I feel confident there is less stealing here than in, say, poor South American cities where there is a lot of law enforcement (though corrupt), no path to education and no honor in a hard day's work or in providing for a family. My point being, arguing that people steal because they want things, can lead to nearly comprehensive solutions. But arguing that people steal because they're evil -- what could that approach possibly solve? Terrorists hate America not because they hate liberty -- I'm sure some of the 9/11 hijackers enjoyed a few shopping malls on the sly -- but because of clear (to them) wrongs that have been committed. Ignore their reasons in the response, and they keep on coming. Paint over those reasons with a gloss of 'They hate liberty! They hate freedom!', and Joe Dimwit Public will happily welcome black+white villains he can zap with his ray gun. See, the argument has kept roaming farther and farther afield of critical thinking. Instead of smoking out terrorists, sometimes by force, we're told that we're attacking evil people who hate liberty and freedom. I still feel there's a strong argument to be made for war -- but somewhere it got lost when we all started wrapping ourselves in the flag and the righteous justice of Almighty God. P.S. You can search Ebert's reviews by various fields, one of which is # of stars. Other movies have received 0's and 1/2s. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | If we prod the nest of fire ants we get swarmed. If we do nothing to it and ignore it, we get over run with fire ants. Damn if we do....Damn if we don't.... My two cents and I posted. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | the first review that i have seen that received urlLink zero stars http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-david21f.html |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | what we need right now is a well thought out and cutting rebuttal from mr. chris king. oh destruction, where art thou? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | To clarify: I said the Bush administration *had* a strong case, but exchanged it for weaker one. Based on the original argument, I support a (brief and decisive) war with full and fair closure for Iraq. The second (and current) argument, which has added that Saddam is evil to his people, that Iraq as a country is a direct threat to us, that we want to rescue the Iraqi people, is nonsense to me; there are many evil leaders, Iraq is an *in*direct threat by way of terrorists (re: original argument), and there are millions of people all over the world who are oppressed whom we don't 'rescue.' To me, these arguments fail to support war, and adding them to the original argument has clouded the issue and left me unsatisfied. I am left supporting the war for a compelling reason that has since been buried under what sells on TV. I feel like I'm at a football game where I'm cheering for my school because I want us in the championships, while everyone around me is cheering for my school because they hate the opposing coach. I don't care about the other coach. I can't join in and cheer as loudly under those conditions. As to the argument that terrorists will keep coming at us until we make it unsafe for them to operate, etc.: as I stated before, I believe this is only half right. If fights break out at the roadhouse because everyone's high on drugs, and we respond by arresting everyone and shutting down the roadhouse, sure there will be no more fights. But the drugs will move to another roadhouse. And we don't have the resources nor the will to eliminate all roadhouses, then all bars, then all clubs, then, then, then.... If we don't address the reason in some way, the only sure solution is the arresting or killing of all violent Muslims, throughout the world. Good luck managing that. This enemy isn't a Nazi government, a country to be contained. They're individual people, full of anger they feel is justified, who can wander about freely like ants. It would be mighty (darkly) funny if we elminated all WMD throughout the world, and the day after we declared victory, some random fellow got lucky and piloted a hijacked airliner into the Lake Anna nuclear plant. For that matter, after WMDs are eliminated, what's next -- fertilizer? If our only response is to neutralize them, we had better kill them all, every last one, quickly, utterly, completely, and erase them forever from the history books so that all their relatives and descendents will forget they ever existed. Rage never dies, and it always finds a way. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I'm sure this will surprise few (if any) of you. I support the impending conflict. I have a hard time calling it a war for two reasons. First, Congress will not declare war. Second, just as the Tampa Bay Bucaneers playing Lee-Davis High School is not a football game, the US military versus the remnants of the Iraqi military is not a war. Given the tenacity of the Israelis, I think they could defeat Iraq in a conventional fight. Those last two words are the key to me. Both Johnathan and Miriam have said that the Bush administration has not made a strong case for going to war with Iraq. I have no doubt that Iraq has WMD. Probably not nuclear, as nuclear material has a habit of leaving a foot print, but biological and chemical are much harder to track. I have no doubt that our intelligence agencies, embarassed and pissed off about their gaffes pre-September 11, 2001, have sources and proof of these WMD. For two reasons (alerting Sadaam of what we know and having him move them and protecting our intelligence sources), we have not come out and said 'OK, over here they have 2 tons of Anthrax, and over there they have 500 gallons of VX. There are weapons that Iraq previously admitted having that are unaccounted for. That is scary. It would not take much for Sadaam to give these things to Osama and his buddies, if it meant hurting the US. Yes, Sadaam is considered an infidel by OBL. I'm sure Sadaam considers OBL a madman (funny, when you think about Sadaam's mental state). They don't like each other, true. But, their hatred of us (and western culture in general) is greater. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (for now). Why do you think we supported Iraq in their war against Iran? Because we thought Sadaam was a righteous dude? Heck no. It was because our choices of opposition to Iran (who was holding the hostages) were extremely limited (the Soviet Union, like that would happen, and Afghanistan, who, oh by the way, had been invaded by the Soviet Union. So, we made a deal with the devil in the name of trying to get our people back. So, if OBL sent Sadaam a message saying he had a way to get a WMD into NYC, DC, or LA, don't you think he would give OBL whatever was needed to deliver it there? I agree, peace and diplomacy should always be the first option, but we have had 12 years of defiance of the terms Sadaam agreed to as part of the end of the Gulf War. That is the difference between 'defying' an optional treaty that you didn't sign (Kyoto and the International War Crimes) versus a treaty that was part of the terms of your surrender. How much longer are we supposed to give him to comply? At what point do we say enough is enough? When a city disappears in a mushroom cloud or a VX bomb goes of in Central Park? Three thousand people were killed a year and half ago by Islamic extremists. They will keep coming at us until we make it unsafe for them to operate anywhere in the world and give them no support structure supplying weapons and money. Now, if it ends up that Iraq does not have WMD, you will see a huge backlash against Bush, and Edwards/Kerrey/Clinton/Gephardt will be the next president. That, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. But, if the peoples trust is broken, Bush will not survive politically. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Regardless of one's opinion regarding Iraq, it is undeniable that should individuals or groups decide to retaliate, it will be us -- you, me, our families, our friends -- who will be the favored target. We -- the citizens of this country -- are about to be enlisted in a cause for which we may die. Not the soldiers, not the pilots, not the marines -- us. The question is not are you willing to sacrifice the professional soldiers for this cause -- but are you willing to sacrifice yourself, on the battlefield of the shopping mall or apartment building? Are you willing to trade the life of your three-year-old so that peace will prevail? Because the Apache helicopter is awfully hard to hit. But a playground, now -- right down the road from you -- that's easy pickings. I suspect a great many people have not made the logical connection from the desert waaaaay over there to their own office building. Sure, we watched the WTC fall; we watched the people jumping from windows. But it is human nature to believe oneself immortal; to believe it's all a video game. Which it is, until the stage catches fire and the night club is filling with smoke and you're reminded that Hey, dude, this is, like, real. This posting is not for or against the war -- just a reminder that a vote for it is a tacit acceptance of the possibility that the cost of the goal will not be professional soldiers, but your niece, burned or gassed or diseased or shot. Granted, one may feel that is going to happen anyway, so what the hell. And a valid argument can be made for that. I just hope our eyes are open. Wide. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | okay - i promise last post for awhile - urlLink http://www.ready.gov/index.html |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | from an article in the washington post No definitive price tag or time limit has been put on the plan, and officials stressed that much remains unknown about the length of a potential conflict, how much destruction would result, and 'how deep' the corruption of the Iraqi government goes. The administration has declined to estimate how long U.S. forces would remain in Iraq. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman told Congress last week that it might be two years before the Iraqis regained administrative control of their country. But 'they're terrified of being caught in a time frame,' said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, one of a number of senior military and civilian experts who have been briefed by the Pentagon on the plan. 'My own view is that it will take five years, with substantial military power, to establish and exploit the peace' in Iraq. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | op ed from the ny times February 21, 2003 The Martial Plan By PAUL KRUGMAN he Marshall Plan was America's finest hour. After World War I, the victors did what victors usually do: they demanded reparations from the vanquished. But after World War II America did something unprecedented: it provided huge amounts of aid, helping both its allies and its defeated enemies rebuild. It wasn't selfless altruism, of course; it was farsighted, enlightened self-interest. America's leaders understood that fostering prosperity, stability and democracy was as important as building military might in the struggle against Communism. But one suspects that our current leaders would have jeered at this exercise in 'nation-building.' And they are certainly following a very different strategy today. It's not that the Bush administration is always stingy. In fact, right now it is offering handouts right and left. Most notably, it has offered the Turkish government $26 billion in grants and loans if it ignores popular opposition and supports the war. Some observers also point out that the administration has turned the regular foreign aid budget into a tool of war diplomacy. Small countries that currently have seats on the U.N. Security Council have suddenly received favorable treatment for aid requests, in an obvious attempt to influence their votes. Cynics say that the 'coalition of the willing' President Bush spoke of turns out to be a 'coalition of the bought off' instead. But it's clear that the generosity will end as soon as Baghdad falls. After all, look at our behavior in Afghanistan. In the beginning, money was no object; victory over the Taliban was as much a matter of bribes to warlords as it was of Special Forces and smart bombs. But President Bush promised that our interest wouldn't end once the war was won; this time we wouldn't forget about Afghanistan, we would stay to help rebuild the country and secure the peace. So how much money for Afghan reconstruction did the administration put in its 2004 budget? None. The Bush team forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse. You can see why the Turks, in addition to demanding even more money, want guarantees in writing. Administration officials are insulted when the Turks say that a personal assurance from Mr. Bush isn't enough. But the Turks know what happened in Afghanistan, and they also know that fine words about support for New York City, the firefighters and so on didn't translate into actual money once the cameras stopped rolling. And Iraq will receive the same treatment. On Tuesday Ari Fleischer declared that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction ?even though experts warn that it may be years before the country's oil fields are producing at potential. Off the record, some officials have even described Iraqi oil as the 'spoils of war.' So there you have it. This administration does martial plans, not Marshall Plans: billions for offense, not one cent for reconstruction. Of course, postwar reconstruction in Europe and Japan wasn't just a matter of money; America can also be proud of the way it built democratic institutions. Alas, the Bush administration's postwar political plans are even more alarming than its economic nonchalance. Turkey has reportedly been offered the right to occupy much of Iraqi Kurdistan. Yes, that's right: as we move to liberate the Iraqis, our first step may be to deliver people who have been effectively independent since 1991 into the hands of a hated foreign overlord. Moral clarity! Meanwhile, outraged Iraqi exiles report that there won't be any equivalent of postwar de-Nazification, in which accomplices of the defeated regime were purged from public life. Instead the Bush administration intends to preserve most of the current regime: Saddam Hussein and a few top officials will be replaced with Americans, but the rest will stay. You don't have to be an Iraq expert to realize that many very nasty people will therefore remain in power ?more moral clarity! ?and that the U.S. will in effect take responsibility for maintaining the rule of the Sunni minority over the Shiite majority. If this all sounds incredibly callous and shortsighted, that's because it is. But then what did you expect? This administration doesn't worry about long-term consequences ?just look at its fiscal policy. It wants its war; there's not the slightest indication that it's interested in the boring, expensive task of building a just and lasting peace. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | some interesting info about how the bush administration is 'persuading' the un security council to invade iraq urlLink http://www.bodyandsoul.blogspot.com/ |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | i'm not sure which tori album i like the best - i'm thinking 'little earthquakes' - maybe 'choirgirl hotel' btw, i'm going to see tori next wednesday!!!!! and madonna, open your heart to me. baby, you hold the lock and i've got the key. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I am and will forever be a Madonna man tori had one great album the rest didn't speak to me |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | nay bark grass go may straight chant Faye K Q And can I just say that there has been mucho blog bonding between harmony and tori...dammit, woman, don't make me give you my kyla thomas speech! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | now i desperately want to play risk - and i'm not going to hold back next time. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | We continue to avoid the strongest argument: Even though Asia is worth 7 armies, there are only three reasons to hold the Middle East: (1) as a buffer for holding Africa, (2) as a buffer for holding Europe (though the Ukraine and Southern Europe are the weaker points); and (3) as a launching point for the seizing of Australia. Personally, I think our time would be better spent taking South America and holding tight for a while; once Alaska or Quebec falls, we need an escape route. Then again -- maybe we just need another card to complete a set. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Note timestamp -- tori posted less than 30 seconds before me -- synch ro ni ci ty -- oh yeah -- we rule the house -- i am so bored today -- gabba gabba hey |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Oh come on -- someone else opininate! War is coming! War is coming! Yay or nay? Bark or bray? Grass or hay? Go or stay? March or May? Straight or gay? Chant or pray? Faye or Wray? O or K? Q or A? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | hmmm.. why i'm against the war with iraq. 1. there seems to be no defined reason why we are specifically going to war with iraq as opposed to any other nation. they are other countries which have violated u.n. sanctions and decrees (here in the us we simply don't sign the agreements or ignore them) 2. iraq is not a genuine threat to u.s. interests - which violates the powell doctrine (colin powell) that the u.s. should only enter a war when u.s. interests are clearly at stake - he bases that philosophy on his experiences in vietnam. 3. there is limited public support for this war. a war without public support is not likely to get the funding it needs to be successful. 4. yes, of course, we could win the war against iraq if all we wanted to do was to bomb it and then leave.however, bush has said that there will be a regime change. this will require years of occupation by the u.s. military in order to have a peaceful transition - if one is possible. after an u.s. invasion - it is likely that muslim fundamentalist will be the most organized and well-funded group in iraq. 5. assuming the u.s. does win this war, the kurds, which at this time mainly occupied the u.n. controlled northern half of iraq, would demand their own country. this would cause unrest in turkey which has a sizeable kurdish population. turkey would not want to give up land or anything else to the kurds - the kurds are considered 'terrorists' in turkey. 6. as mr. wigglepants pointed out, this also does not solve any of the problems that exist in the middle east. the islamic population will still believe that the u.s. is occupying muslim lands and should leave. the palestinians will still not have a homeland. the israelis will still be hated by the rest of the middle eastern community. 7. war is wrong unless it is the absolute last resort - diplomacy is still an option. 8. what gives the u.s. the right to dispose of a leader? and why just saddam hussein? where does it go from here? 9. how does this fight the war on terrorism? will we be safer after this? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | My cubicle is sadly underdressed. I need more stuff. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I got more chins than Chinatown |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Ding dong! Ding dong, yo! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | You ain't fat! You ain't nothin'! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Opinions ho! Opinions, ho! Ho, Opinions! Whatchyo opinion, ho? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | FINALLY. Thank you, Chris, for breaking the silence and posting an opinion. Rock on. I have to pee. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | hey ben - how about some new secret city news? eternal muse distraction, my butt. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Chris King and Michael Dukakis, helmeted and ready for action... ;-) |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | OK, I'll rise to it.... IMHO: Military Intelligence is still an oxymoron. Politicians still get the military into trouble by overpromising. The military still sucks at PR. War is still an ugly, tiring, destructive thing that hurts people, sometimes permenantly. I think that second marketplace that was hit (the one that killed 50+ Iraqi civilians) was planted by Iraqi security forces -- the timing was too convenient, and they didn't do anything to restrict reports from reporting on it -- even better -- they encouraged reporters to go there and see for themselves. We're in for the long-haul, kids. So sit back and stay tuned. Finally, it still stirs something very primal in me to see 65 tons of depleted uranium and hardened steel churning across a desert at 55 miles an hour.... Does anyone else want to agree with me if I said I missed my calling as a tank commander? P.S. Don't be misled by that 1.3 million number for our armed forces -- a solid majority are not involved in actual combat.... The Army is going to be so committed to Iraq that if something else happens (North Korea, anyone?), we're going to be in deep kimchee.... |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | meow. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Nothing? You guys are a bunch of pussies. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I just love the 'Jessica Fletcher moment of revelation' when she finds, sees or hears something that makes the pieces of the mystery fall together. Sometimes she even says, 'Of course!' which makes it even better. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Just looked at his picture. Eeeew. Your theory IS true. I'm sure of it now. . |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | urlLink The Wayback Machine |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Is he old? If so, your theory may be true. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I have a theory that Donald Rumsfeld reeks of mint or butterscotch. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | LEGALIZE POT!!! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | '...U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warns Syria that the U.S. considers military shipments to Iraq a 'hostile act.'' Wonder if Iran felt that way, when we armed him for the Iran-Iraq war. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Come on, conservatives! 120,000 more ground troops are on the way! Soon hundreds, maybe thousands will be gassed or diseased, and your suspicions will be quickly and effectively proved true! The Arab world trembles before our might, and no terrorist would ever think of striking back, now that they've seen how strong we are! And democracy is about to dawn across the Middle East! Yet the Blog remains silent! Come on, kids -- this is your day! Speak up! Praise! Attack! Gloat! Something! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Cordy has her moments. You know what owns? 'Inside Out' by urlLink Eve 6 . I'm going to really make myself look young here and just say that song is one of the anthems of my generation. I rocked out to it to the point of nearly losing my voice on the way home from work today. It kicks that much ass. You know what else owns? A good tuna melt. I wish I could be happy today not feeling so guilty about how badly we're getting our asses beat right now. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | The liberals post links and dye their hair, while the conservatives remain silent.... |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | cordy is evil, man. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | this is kinda interesting too ht urlLink tp://www.defenselink.mil/faq/index.html#People%20%26%20Records |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | found that on urlLink http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/index.html#People%20%26%20Records |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | The total numerical strength of the Armed Forces on Feb. 29, 2000, was 1,369,022. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | old news but disturbing nonetheless urlLink http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/516894p-4102578c.html |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Depends a great deal on if anyone else was told about it. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | did anyone besides me see our friend ben on cable access last night? he was incredible. truly amazing. for me to poop on. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Looks like another 120,000 troops will be on their way soon! How big is our military, anyway? I have no idea. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I'd comment, but someone may be eavesdropping. Wonder where that comes from. Eavesdropping. Dropping eaves. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | i totally agree angie. take that. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Okay...here's my two cents, which is sort of a war offshoot. I don't like the fact that my civil rights are being compromised with the invasion of my urlLink privacy , and yet the government's is being urlLink protected . I think that really, REALLY sucks, and I think many people are oblivious to that, or don't realize the implications of it. So lay into me, all of you. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | *...tumbleweed...lonely wind blows...* |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Our country is at war, yet there is no Blogalogue. Are celebrity makeovers and bad jokes all we are capable of? Where are the conservatives with their bold arguments? Where are the liberals with their moral outrage? Where are the moderates with their...with their...uh...popcorn or something... |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Do we get tea with that? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | 'Bush: 'Day of reckoning' is 'drawing near'...' To be followed by the Afternoon of Surmising and the Night of Judgment. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | It was law for you to be meant. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | i was meant to be a lawyer. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | (hopping up and down, clapping) celebrity death! celebrity death! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | CNN's website stopped the red scroll today, and the War Tracker is now a tiny link. We already want something new. Maybe there will be another kidnapping, or perhaps a celebrity death. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I good exfoliant might help clear that antecedent. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | My inner ear itches. I hate that. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | ugh. i knew you were going to read it like that because the antecedent isn't clear. it was the son who had the broken leg, not the father. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Why did the son break his father's leg? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I. am. SO. bored. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | there was nothing to be done for my hair - i will now have blue/black hair for many months. i curse destiny. but is it like the farmer and his son who broke his leg? we shall see my friends, we shall see. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Popular uprising in Basra! Coalition forces report jocks, cheerleaders, and rich kids taking the situation into their own hands. Members of the marching band, chorus, and various arts clubs remain at home. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | i hate edonkey. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Tonight I am Ra God of the Sun Come to me, my dark beauty Dance and whirl in the roaring flames From the spent ashes you will rise like the phoenix And go CAW! CAW! Really loudly |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | He weeps, he laughs maniacally, he thrashes himself with leather straps while chanting...you know, it just kind of depends on the night. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | does he weep? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | And you should hear him in the bedroom! |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I harm many people -- but they are small people -- very, very small -- and no one can see them but me. Soon they will worship me as a god. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | i still haven't figure out whether harmony is psychotic. he seems to have the mentality but he doesn't actually harm people. very interesting. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Oooooh, but *what* a pair it was, baby -- the flames could be seen for miles |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | angie - could you please check your email - and i bleached it on sunday, dyed black on monday and for an update on the hypothetical situation presented earlier: after begging and pleading with his boss and humilating himself entirely, he was able to get the time off and can now meet my parents. he also apologized about 50 times. unfortunately for him, i took harmony's advice and have burned all of his athletic shoes. fortunately for him, he only had one pair. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | No, no -- share your petty rage! And I will share my petty foreboding. This fellow appears to have been very thoughtless. Anger is valid. I recommend piling all his athletic shoes in the tub and setting them on fire. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | thank you so much for your insight, sir happyslacks - i will be sure to keep my petty rage to myself from now on. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | I think you should get really, really, really mad, because that always makes things better. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | oh, and he was supposed to meet your parents for the first time, and your parents were making a special effort to be there and had to take time off work in order to be at this prearranged dinner. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | question: let's say someone does something unintentionally and pisses you off. example: you were supposed to go out to dinner on wednesday night - it is the sunday before that wednesday when your dining companion tells you that he forgot and he already agreed to work late that night and he won't be home until 10pm. he apologizes profusely and tries to switch days with someone but is unable to do so. how mad should you get at the person for forgetting his schedule and ruining your plans? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Humans in general. Americans seem particularly fearful, and strangely proud and defensive of it. I'm beginning to think that a consumer-based society cannot thrive without fear. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Do you mean human beings in general or just Americans? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | An observation: We seem unable to function without fear. Whether the reaction is passive or aggressive, our identity seems almost entirely dependent upon fear. Try to take fear away from the fearful, and they get angry. There is a fierce pride in fear: the fearful perceive fear as a sign of intelligence; those without fear are deemed stupid or ill-informed. It is smart to be afraid of labor unions; it is stupid to be afraid of corporations. It is smart to be afraid of our nuclear arsenal; it is stupid to be afraid of public health care. It seems nearly impossible to make any decision free of fear. Fear appears to be not an emotion, but rather the inescapable, invisible framework of human experience. Without fear and our reaction to it, we are nothing. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | my hair is bright yellow and actually looks much better than it did yesterday at the game. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | thought this might infuriate john and chris; inspire ben and well, i guess just me and ben - Director Moore criticizes U.S.-Iraq war March 23, 2003 | Michael Moore criticized President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq during his acceptance speech at Sunday's Academy Awards, drawing a partial standing ovation and some jeers from Hollywood's elite. The documentary maker won his first Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, but he brought the other nominees on stage with him in what he called a show of solidarity for nonfiction during these fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president, Moore said. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. Applause gave way to some boos, as the orchestra began playing to cue the filmmaker to leave the stage. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Moore shouted. Afterward, host Steve Martin tried to restore levity. It was so sweet backstage, you should have seen it, Martin joked. The Teamsters were helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo. Bowling for Columbine was Moore's exploration of gun violence in America. The title refers to the fact that gunmen Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went bowling before they opened fire at Columbine High School in Colorado, killing 12 students and a teacher before turning the guns on themselves. Asked backstage why he made the remarks, Moore answered: I'm an American. Is that all? a reporter asked. Oh, that's a lot, Moore responded. He dismissed the jeers he received, telling reporters: Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed. The rotund, scruffy-bearded activist from Flint, Mich., also directed the 1989 documentary Roger & Me, in which he pursued former General Motors Corp. boss Roger Smith to confront him about the collapse of the auto industry in Moore's hometown. He's also the author of the best-selling book Stupid White Men ... And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation, which criticizes American politicians for favoring corporate wealth over public well-being. Scattered appeals for peace and grim reports from the U.S.-led war in Iraq added a sober contrast to Hollywood's traditional night of glitzy self-glorification. In light of all the troubles in this world, I wish us all peace, Chris Cooper said during his acceptance speech for best supporting actor for Adaptation. Cooper was among several nominees, including Meryl Streep and Martin Scorsese, who wore dove peace pins on their formal wear as a silent statement about the war |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Black was probably a respect for the war/soldiers thing, I'm thinking. Halle Berry's dress was a bit unflattering...and it's hard to NOT flatter that body. I kind of liked J Lo's sea-foam mumu. It was very 70's and fun to me. I liked that Nicole Kidman and Susan Sarandon had dresses with similar necklines...it was so faux pas, and it made me laugh to think that they might have seen each other and said, 'Shit!' when they got there. Yes, I'm breaking up with Johnathan and moving to wherever it is that Adrian Brody lives, a location unknown to me, as I have never actually met him and I am totally kidding. That's just sort of the Angie way of saying that I really like him. Kind of like how Liv Tyler and Angelina Jolie are my girlfriends. Oh, and by the way, I've decided that I did not like the color that Julia Roberts had dyed her hair. It didn't do anything for her skin tone. And Kate Hudson's hair, skin and dress were all the same color...she looked like a walking tan with lips. It was a little strange. I thought Diane Lane looked fabulous though. And I think Catherine Zeta-Jones is just so cute when she's pregnant. The only acting I've ever seen her do that I really liked was 'Zorro' and 'Traffic,' so I'm not like a huge fan or anything, but she makes a darn tootin' cute lil pregnant lady. I worry that Julianne Moore will suffer from Meryl Streep Syndrome and be nominated a jillion times and not win (although Meryl did win two, but that was 20+ years ago, and she's been nominated MANY more times since). I really hope she gets one someday, because she's just really first-rate. This was going to be a short post that turned into a long ramble because I'm avoiding doing my task at work, i.e., labeling and taping brochure mail-outs. Blah. Save me. |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | blech. i like the 'real' aragorn much better. and yes, the dress did look fabulous on zellweger. what was up with all the black last night? and halle berry was not wearing a flattering dress - and what was up with j.lo and her sea foam mumu? i'm not sure if i liked nicole kidman's dress or not... adrian brody is your new boyfriend? congrats - does this mean you are moving? |
589,736 | male | 35 | Technology | Aries | 05,August,2004 | Oh, and by the way, Mir... urlLink This is the would-be Aragorn, Stuart Townsend. Thank God he and Jackson didn't get along, 'cause Viggo is just...well...yeah. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.