Commissar

That sort of proves my point, you realize. How can there be a mistake made if it's entirely random? They had some particular target in mind, and got the wrong one. Your theory of random searches has been pushed right out the window by your very own evidence.

We're not. That was sort of my point. If we bother expending the resources to go search/question somebody, we're doing it because we think they might know something. If we were to go house by house through every city in Iraq, nevermind the outlying villages, we wouldn't even be halfway through Baghdad alone right now. So try again. I imagine you're talking about Guantanamo. I'd love to see you provide some actual proof to back up all of these claims of yours. Last thing I remember hearing out of Gitmo was that we flushed a Koran down the toilet. American news magazine reported that, sparked a lot of worldwide condemnation. Turned out to be patently false. Now, come on. Flushing a Koran down the toilet is the best you can do with abuse allegations? Why not ask how many guys are forced to watch a Bible being burned at SERE? As far as the CIA camps go, no one's proven their existence, either. Do they exist? Probably. But you have no idea what they're for, because you haven't been to one, and neither has anybody else who's talking. I don't support Bush, in the sense that I didn't vote for him and don't support many of his policies, but, you know, he's sort of my boss. Also, a loss for him sort of means a loss for the US, and I most definitely do support the US. You, on the other hand, have clearly stated your preference for an insurgent victory time and time again. No matter what the insurgency has managed to pull off, the vile, imperialistic Americans have always managed to do something worse. They sawed off a guy's head on camera? Well, golly gee, some of our half-wits took naked pictures of people! And got put in jail for it! That's much, much worse! Well, Iraq is entirely incapable of defending itself at the moment, so you're right, we're going to stick around for a while. Of course, being entirely unable to defend yourself isn't really all that uncommon in your neck of the woods, I'm aware, but it actually means something in the Middle East with a neighbor like Iran. I don't know of any country in the world that allows non-citizens to determine who's put in charge of it. Do you?

Argue with facts, not personal attacks. If you're just going to flame people you're better off not contributing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look who's talking..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you're still rather weepy over my pointing out that the Balkans are not known for, you know, civility, I'm not entirely sure what to say to you. I was not in fact flaming, simply making the point that the United States, Great Britain, and Israel aren't the only ones in the world capable of producing...what was it you said? Ah, yes. Butchers.

Argue with facts, not personal attacks. If you're just going to flame people you're better off not contributing.

Where're you from, again? A non-violent bastion of peace and love, if I recall correctly.

Judging by his post-game comments, Manning wasn't exactly thrilled with the way the o-line played today. I'm a little inclined to agree, given that they saw Pittsburgh bringing five or even six the entire damned game, and couldn't figure out a way to handle it. Edit: I'm also curious to see if there's going to be any fallout from Manning essentially telling Dungy to piss off with that whole waving-the-punt-team-off-the-field thing. Especially since it worked.

EVE Online.

I'll break this down for you: Them - Those who think it's a grand idea to fly an airplane into a building or drive a van loaded with fertilizer and a detonator into a police station. Us - Those who do not want to be blown up by either of those methods. Are you suggesting negotiation? Appeasement? Understanding their point of view? I understand their point of view perfectly. In fact, the only thing (to my knowledge) that I've been reported for on this forum is for explaining my understanding of that point of view, in suggesting that terrorism has worked for the Palestinians, due to Israel's capitulation on the Gaza Strip settlements issue. I understand precisely why terrorism is being used against the United States, but by no means does that suggest I want those who use it to succeed in their endeavors.

Well, let me put it this way: randomly selecting people to interrogate is extremely inefficient, and gives you absolutely no useful information. Just as the cops don't randomly search houses without a reason for thinking there might be a need, nor do US forces in Iraq randomly wander into civilians' houses unless they believe they might be involved in something they're not supposed to be. We don't have the resources to search everybody. I'm getting tired of this. There are investigations ALL...THE...TIME into allegations of abuse. All the time. People lose their jobs and their careers over mistreating prisoners or suspects. If it's systematic policy to torture and execute people all over the place, why are so many servicemen and women getting jailtime for doing so? Yes, I am on Bush's side, in the sense that this is a conflict I want the US to win. You're suggesting that this is a conflict you want the insurgents and terrorists to win? Wow. Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that Iraq just had democratic elections for the first time in...geez, how long? I want to say at least a couple of decades. I also want to say that the Iraqis voted in large numbers for members of a party that the US doesn't particularly like. As far as I know, we haven't invalidated the elections, so your claims of puppet dictatorships are thus far a little weak. By the way, it doesn't matter if the entire world's against the reelection of Bush; you guys don't get a vote. You claim not to be a supporter of the idea of leaving Iraq in the hands of an oppressive dictator, and yet I haven't seen you or anyone else from that side of the pond step up and do anything about it, not even announce plans to. You're an isolationist, just admit it and be done. You officially do not live within the realm of reality. It's foolish to attempt to escape from a group of individuals who have absolutely no qualms about beheading their prisoners? I suppose slaves shouldn't have tried to run away back in early 19th century America, either.

Rereading this again... I just found the hypocrisy in these said words Oh noes, they cannot attack your citizens, but they should accept without resistance that you kill other nation's citizens... Way to go. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're going to have to explain to me who we were supposedly killing prior to September 11th, 2001. If you're talking about Iraq, I'm not entirely sure what you want me to say. They're more than welcome to resist, if they so choose, knowing full well that resistance greatly endangers the civilian populace in which they live. But you know what? They don't seem to care too much, do they? Using civilian screens, placing roadside bombs in the middle of villages, engaging US and Iraqi national security forces in crowded settings...

Not to mention their hospitality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They do tend to have a bit of a '70s disco thing going on, though. Big-collar shirts, open to the chest, with gold chains. But damn, they make some good food. I have no idea how to transliterate it (or even spell it in Russian, for that matter), but there's a dish they have called khachapuri, or something like that...think basically cheese bread, but that doesn't even begin to cover it. Stuffed peppers, some fantastic stews...man. Mama Zoya's in Moscow, how I miss it so.

That's a direct quote, is it? Provide me with a link, if you will. Actually, despite knowing it's not a direct quote, I don't even care. I've heard cops use the same language when raiding a meth lab in the Midwest. Once again, Abu Ghraib was discovered and investigated not by journalists, but by the US Army. News of violations of prisoner treatment policies there were released to the press by the US Army. Those directly involved have been prosecuted; those who allowed it to happen under their command have been punished in various ways. Remember that German guy who got picked up in Macedonia and taken to Afghanistan for six months? Explain to me again why we released him, knowing full well that he'd tell his story, instead of just shooting him in the back of the head fifty miles outside of Kabul, where he'd never be found? That's simply not true. I was indeed speaking about Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorists in general. And the British, the Poles, and anyone else who has decided to assist us in that particular fight is very much included in "us." My question is, why are you on the insurgents' side? You are aware that they're not fighting for peace, love, and understanding, right? They're fighting to reestablish an incredibly harsh, oppressive regime, not democracy. Or are you simply an isolationist who doesn't care if Iraqis torture each other, or reenact laws that allow a woman's family to kill her if she's raped, or prevent her from driving a car, going to work, or even leaving the house without a male escort? Explain the non-Americans who've been kidnapped and killed in Iraq, please.

What came first, the mentality or the reality? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know. I'm inclined to think the reality came first. But hey, if you really wish to believe that there are not, in fact, people who wish to fly airplanes into American buildings, or detonate IEDs whenever a group of soldiers or Marines happen to patrol by them, or kidnap journalists, aid workers, contractors, and servicemen and women of all stripes, you go right ahead. I was responding to mkreku's absurd claim that there are no legitimate targets; the people who are targeting us are, indeed, very much legitimate, very much open to being hit back themselves. Or do you not believe that those committed to the performance of such acts agree to be shot in turn by their very actions? As I told Battlewookiee, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not adopting Bush's stance; there certainly are a great many states and people in the world who are smack dab in the middle, not wanting to support the US' engagements against terrorists, nor wanting to support the terrorists' attacks on the US. So tell me not to adopt and us vs. them mentality. Go on, tell me that the various Unpronounceable Martyrs Brigades and Unintelligible Armies running around Iraq are not a 'them.' Explain to me how those attempting to harm American citizens do not qualify as a 'them.' Oh, and hey - they don't discriminate, by the by. It ain't just us Yanks. I can tell you'd enjoy sitting down to tea and hummus with 'em, but you're a Westerner, man, so chances are you'd end up pissing yourself in one of those hostage videos like the rest.

So, according to you THEM (see Commissars post to see this is the entire World excluding the US) may freely annihilate 51% of the American population (since they support Bush and got him his seat)? Yah! Let's nuke Washington, NY, LA etc. (because clearly a 51% support means for 100% annihilation)!!! " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't put words in my mouth.

Georgian food is remarkably good.

Out of idle curiosity, how comfortable would you be with me making sweeping statements about the mentality of your countrymen? I think we'd get treated to a temper tantrum. Us vs. them is perfectly acceptable thinking when there is, in fact, an us and a them.

Depends on your perspective, doesn't it? I mean, I know I always tried to get reservations at the Kabul Holiday Inn, known worldwide for being the center of a nationwide network of culture and fine dining - and I loved the WiFi in every room - but it was just such a popular destination, I never could get one. Come on. As Robin Williams said, you can't bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, because Afghanis would just look around and approve of the upgrade. But hey, if you don't like the pace at which, you know, a country is being built, by all means, feel free to contribute to charities working tirelessly within its borders, or better yet, encourage some of your brethren on that side of the pond to send something more than a token force, for those who sent them at all.

In all seriousness, if you're actually even a little concerned about getting crunched, why the hell aren't you taking a self-imposed timeout for a few hours?

It's Saturday, and I have nothing to do until the Seahawks start whippin' ass at 4:30. Edit: I've also been forbidden from playing Eve Online today - I was offered a choice between that and playoffs. So I really do have nothing to do for most of the afternoon.

My position on the whole Iraq thing is that we did the right thing for wrong reasons, the wrong way, meaning that I feel regime change in such a state isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we could've - and should've - tried longer and harder to get the big players in Europe on board with us, and explored other options before utilizing warfare. I do tend to defend the US military, primarily because I realize that its policies are set at the top, not the bottom. In other words, the guy dropping the JDAM, or the Marines going into Fallujah, aren't the ones making those decisions, at the heart of it. I'm not a Bush fan; if you disagree with what's being done, target the right people. As far as my attitude towards Europe, I do think segments of the continent can be too reluctant to use force at times. I just think free, democratic nations have an obligation to step in and try to do something when things go wrong, and many European nations seem to have cultivated an isolationist stance on foreign involvement, which I don't approve of. Most of my comments in that regard have been dealing with Iran, which I simply don't see being resolved without some form of armed engagement, and I know precisely whose shoulders that's going to fall on. But hey, I voted for Kerry, I still think Bush is a nutjob. I'm socially liberal, and on foreign affairs I'd say I'm a centrist. I think the bottom line is that, if it were a Democratic president saying that we need to go into Iraq to end a cruel and tyrannical regime, rather than a Republican saying we need to go in to defend ourselves, you'd see the exact same demographics within the US as now, just with the colors switched. Doesn't mean I'll forgive the administration for its blunders, many of which have led to unnecessary deaths, nor that I'll stop defending the ladies and gentlemen called on to execute a damn tough gameplan.

What's my attitude of late been? One of the points I haven't yet made, since it seems so obvious, is that the article itself is fairly ludicrous - it's also the only link Wikipedia has dealing specifically with this guy. It eschews common sense, suggesting that the threat of being shot by a lone gunman once or twice a month far outweighs the morale hits that accompany multiple casualty IED or VIED attacks three or four times a week.

Well, that's certainly not the impression I intend to make, but if that's the general perception, I can certainly refrain from contributing to Hildy's weekly forumfest and let the disinformation spread without pause.

I heard a team got what was suspected to be him a couple of months ago. Believe it or not, snipers are pretty common over there. Ours are better.

That's not entirely true.

Ha...ha? Did you really just write that? As stated previously, this is ancient history.