Excuse me - IRAQ HAS SOVEREIGNTY!!!

[D2Kvirus]

Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.

I'd act surprised, but I'm not an actor...

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 10:28 AM, BaKsHi wrote:

At 6/30/04 09:54 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.

I'd act surprised, but I'm not an actor...

No it doesn't. If you had watched Michael Moores movie you'd see Bush still has business relations in Iraq which will keep Democracy from actually happening.

Yea, Just watch movies, you'll learn everything you need to know. I think there is a lot of good info in the movie Terminator! Michael Moore said he created the movie to help Bush loose the election. Movies have no credibility in the first place but saying that makes it even worse.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/30/04 10:28 AM, BaKsHi wrote:
No it doesn't. If you had watched Michael Moores movie you'd see Bush still has business relations in Iraq which will keep Democracy from actually happening.

Either way, I still notice nobody has even mentioned it on this board - since they're saying Michael Moore is a fat Commie bastard, and variations upon.

You should not trust Bush.

The fact I have to use heavy sarcasm to get people's attention is worrying, though...

[antiklaus]

At 6/30/04 09:54 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.

I'd act surprised, but I'm not an actor...

Erm, if any country has foreign troops on their soil, just to be able to purchase groceries, then how are they sovereign?

just to make this clear, lets check out the dictionary:

sov·er·eign·ty

1.Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2.Royal rank, authority, or power.
3.Complete independence and self-government

they have none of those... certainly not in toto.

ie they have no sovereignty. What they have is a public relations event to try to defuse the fact that the country is in shambles.

Before people get worked up over a 'free iraq' lets see how democratic they are without american guns enforcing their oil pipelines.

[DrKilledByDeath87]

At 6/30/04 11:34 AM, antiklaus wrote:
sov·er·eign·ty

1.Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2.Royal rank, authority, or power.
3.Complete independence and self-government

That's right. Sure they're "sovern"(sp) but you can'[t make many of your own choices when you've got 100,000 US troops sitting on top of you.

[awkward-silence]

How long do you think it will be before they revolt? Noone respects their police/authority over there.

[The-Enforcer]

At 6/30/04 10:28 AM, BaKsHi wrote:

At 6/30/04 09:54 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.

I'd act surprised, but I'm not an actor...

No it doesn't. If you had watched Michael Moores movie you'd see Bush still has business relations in Iraq which will keep Democracy from actually happening.

Nice pic...

so how would a business plan prevent a democracy? That seems asinine, could you clarify that for us?

[antiklaus]

Nice pic...

so how would a business plan prevent a democracy? That seems asinine, could you clarify that for us?

if you want a historical context for how a 'business plan' can prevent a democracy...

check out : http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/zinn-chap16.html#guatamala

an excerpt:

The government that the United States overthrew was the most democratic Guatemala had ever had. The President, Jacobo Arbenz, was a left-of-center Socialist; four of the fifty-six seats in the Congress were held by Communists. What was most unsettling to American business interests was that Arbenz had expropriated 234,000 acres of land owned by United Fruit, offering compensation that United Fruit called "unacceptable." Armas, in power, gave the land back to United Fruit, abolished the tax on interest and dividends to foreign investors, eliminated the secret ballot, and jailed thousands of political critics.

the same thing is transpiring throughout the middle east - in all of the 'stans as well as Iraq. We place troops in there, get oil pipelines built and supplant local govts with our own more US friendly / corporation friendly leadership. The only difference in Iraq is we supplant one CIA planted dictator with a 'democratically elected' dictator.

[Jimong5]

Iraq does have sovernty, yes, but Now that makes them an occupied country rather than military rule, and some would say that government is a US puppet government. so Iraq has done 1 step, too bad theres 19 to go.

[Proteas]

At 6/30/04 11:34 AM, antiklaus wrote: ie they have no sovereignty. What they have is a public relations event to try to defuse the fact that the country is in shambles.

What we have here is someone who doesn't realize that Iraq is roughly the same size as California. There is more going on there than the two or three car-bombings a week that Tom Brokaw and every other news reporter tend to put the focus on.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 12:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/30/04 11:34 AM, antiklaus wrote:

What we have here is someone who doesn't realize that Iraq is roughly the same size as California. There is more going on there than the two or three car-bombings a week that Tom Brokaw and every other news reporter tend to put the focus on.

It would be interesting to compare the number of people killed in Iraq vs the number of people killed in California on a daily basis. For those who think Iraq should have their sovernty ALL NOW, give them time. If you give it all now they'll choke on it.

[Proteas]

At 6/30/04 01:37 PM, gem1 wrote: It would be interesting to compare the number of people killed in Iraq vs the number of people killed in California on a daily basis. For those who think Iraq should have their sovernty ALL NOW, give them time. If you give it all now they'll choke on it.

CLICK ME!

[ReiperX]

At 6/30/04 01:37 PM, gem1 wrote:

It would be interesting to compare the number of people killed in Iraq vs the number of people killed in California on a daily basis. For those who think Iraq should have their sovernty ALL NOW, give them time. If you give it all now they'll choke on it.

Its not a good comoparison for a few reasons.

1 - Population difference between Iraq and California, as well as the population densities of the cities.
2 - Are you comparing the number of soldiers to the number of people killed in California every day, or are you comparing the total number of deaths killed every day? If the later, I would say that even though I am 99% sure that Iraq has a smaller population even with the US occupying force, there are more people dying total on an average than dies every day in California. But its still not a good comparison.
3 - Cultural differences. The American and Iraqi cultures are different, the people are brought of differently, so some of the people think differently not really caring if people live or die.
4 - Iraq's volitile state. Iraq is not at peace, it is more or less at war with the "insurgents" or whatever you want to call them trying to disrupt the government we are imposing on them. So there will be more deaths anyways.
5 - Do you think that all deaths in Iraq are reported on a dailey basis? I'd be willing to say a lot of them aren't due to poor communication, and easy to just dump a body in the middle of a desert.

So in all, its not really a good comparison to prove anything one way or another. At least in my opinion. Remember, there are more than just US soldiers in Iraq, there are Iraqis too.

[Bubba-Phat]

At 6/30/04 10:31 AM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 10:28 AM, BaKsHi wrote:

At 6/30/04 09:54 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.

I'd act surprised, but I'm not an actor...

No it doesn't. If you had watched Michael Moores movie you'd see Bush still has business relations in Iraq which will keep Democracy from actually happening.

Yea, Just watch movies, you'll learn everything you need to know. I think there is a lot of good info in the movie Terminator! Michael Moore said he created the movie to help Bush loose the election. Movies have no credibility in the first place but saying that makes it even worse.

Just because the Terminator doesn't have any factual credibility doesn't mean that every other movie ever made doesn't. Besides, the Terminator was made as a fictitious entertaining movie. Moore's movie is a documentary, a compilation of facts.

I guess I can understand it. Most 11-year-olds don't open their minds and only listen to mommy and daddy's political views.

Oh, and nice lollipop you've got there.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 02:50 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 01:37 PM, gem1 wrote:

It would be interesting to compare the number of people killed in Iraq vs the number of people killed in California on a daily basis. For those who think Iraq should have their sovernty ALL NOW, give them time. If you give it all now they'll choke on it.

Its not a good comoparison for a few reasons.

No it is not a good comparison for those reasons. What ist does show is how the news only reports the worst and ignores anything good or productive. You will never see stories about the fact that power is pretty much restored to the entire country, or any of 100 good things happening over there. That was actually the point of the comparison.

[Bubba-Phat]

Well put, Reiper.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 02:59 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

At 6/30/04 10:31 AM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 10:28 AM, BaKsHi wrote:

At 6/30/04 09:54 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Everyone seems to have missed this, tripping over themselves to take lame-assed potshots at Michael Moore.

I guess I can understand it. Most 11-year-olds don't open their minds and only listen to mommy and daddy's political views.

Oh, and nice lollipop you've got there.

What are you smoking? MM made a movie to get Bush out of office. That was his purpose, not facts! It's simple.

[Bubba-Phat]

At 6/30/04 03:00 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 02:50 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 01:37 PM, gem1 wrote:

It would be interesting to compare the number of people killed in Iraq vs the number of people killed in California on a daily basis. For those who think Iraq should have their sovernty ALL NOW, give them time. If you give it all now they'll choke on it.

Its not a good comoparison for a few reasons.

No it is not a good comparison for those reasons. What ist does show is how the news only reports the worst and ignores anything good or productive. You will never see stories about the fact that power is pretty much restored to the entire country, or any of 100 good things happening over there. That was actually the point of the comparison.

Why the hell are you talking about what the media is doing? You're just changing topic because you know that you've been pwn3d and you are looking for a way out.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 03:03 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:00 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 02:50 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 01:37 PM, gem1 wrote:

Why the hell are you talking about what the media is doing? You're just changing topic because you know that you've been pwn3d and you are looking for a way out.

What? Who are you, go back to your kindergarden class, the adults were having a discussion here.

[Bubba-Phat]

You are changing topic again. Moore wants Bush out of office because he's such an asshole. You blamed him of wanting to further his career. Now you say it's a crime that he wants Bush out of office.

However, he uses facts to support this. The facts are there, whether you like it or not.

I already use the STFUn00b thing. But I think you were pwn3d too so I'll use this.

[ReiperX]

At 6/30/04 03:03 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

Why the hell are you talking about what the media is doing? You're just changing topic because you know that you've been pwn3d and you are looking for a way out.

No, actually Gem is making a very valid point. The news isn't showing most of the good stuff that is happening. Reason for that though is because good news doesn't sell. Unfortunately people do tend to forget that a lot of good things are happening in Iraq, alongside the bad. I do know of some of the things going on, a lot of the guys from my shop are helping build schools and homes. But you can't focus on neither the good or the bad and get a good picture of how it is in Iraq. You have to look at the entire picture, which unfortunately is hard to do because of the media.

Its like you always hear about all the horror stories about meeting people online and them turning out to be complete assholes, or really a guy, or a kidnapper or murderer. You don't really hear about stuff like happened with me and my wife, we met each other, and are having a very hapy marriage. I know of 2 other personal friends that have done the same, and all ended up great. But you won't hear about those on the news because it won't sell. But when you meet a serial killer and end up in 15 pieces after meeting them, now thats news worthy.

[ReiperX]

First off, I have not seen this movie yet, may go see it though, just taking what I got from a few of my anti bush friends as well as a few bush supporters and their reviews.

At 6/30/04 03:07 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

However, he uses facts to support this. The facts are there, whether you like it or not.

He uses a lot of facts, and half truths in this documentary. Not everything in it is probally as Michael Moore put it. It is a biased movie, it is made to hurt President Bush and express the views of Michael Moore, who has every right to do so. But I wouldn't say all of what is in the movie is factual, but from what I have heard of it there aren't any blatent lies, just a bunch of half truths. If I see the movie, I'll post my own thoughts on it as well though. But you gotta take this movie with a grain of salt and think for yourself what you believe is the truth and what isn't.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 03:11 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:03 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

You have to look at the entire picture, which unfortunately is hard to do because of the media.

Exactly, and the media is not always reporting left or right, just the wost of either to sell their story. I think people want everything right now and are not willing to wait for it. The reconstruction of Germany took a lot longer than this and that country did not have the problems this country is faced with. As far as Bubba, no responce is needed. He invalidates any point he makes by acting like a child.

[ReiperX]

At 6/30/04 03:19 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:11 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:03 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

You have to look at the entire picture, which unfortunately is hard to do because of the media.

Exactly, and the media is not always reporting left or right, just the wost of either to sell their story. I think people want everything right now and are not willing to wait for it. The reconstruction of Germany took a lot longer than this and that country did not have the problems this country is faced with. As far as Bubba, no responce is needed. He invalidates any point he makes by acting like a child.

You'd be surprised how many people think their immaturity makes them think they are so smart.
I do understand that Iraq is going to take quite a while to get on its feet, its going to cost the US a lot more american lives, and a lot more Iraqi lives. And I can't wait for the US to get the job done and get the hell out of Iraq, but at the same time we have a job to do, and we have to do it. I'm not a supporter of the war, I have been against it from the begining. But the US was put into this situation, and now we have to fix it. I do wish we had put in a democratically elected government though, even with limited powers rathat than us putting in the government that we put in now. Either way we have to stay in Iraq until it is stable enough without us, but at least then I would feel more comfortable with the Iraqis choosing their leaders and not the US.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 03:25 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:19 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:11 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:03 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

Either way we have to stay in Iraq until it is stable enough without us, but at least then I would feel more comfortable with the Iraqis choosing their leaders and not the US.

I don't agree with you on everything but I do agree we have to see it through and do it right or we will loose everything (lives and money) we have invested up to now. I think weather we should have gone to war or not is seperate from how we deal with it now.

[ReiperX]

At 6/30/04 03:30 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:25 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:19 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:11 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/30/04 03:03 PM, Bubba_Phat wrote:

Either way we have to stay in Iraq until it is stable enough without us, but at least then I would feel more comfortable with the Iraqis choosing their leaders and not the US.

I don't agree with you on everything but I do agree we have to see it through and do it right or we will loose everything (lives and money) we have invested up to now. I think weather we should have gone to war or not is seperate from how we deal with it now.

Exactly. personaly I've known about 18 Marines that have died in Iraq so far. I would hate to see the military pull out and see their lives to have been wasted. A lot of my fellow marines feel the same way, the ones that supported the war and the ones that didn't. Iraq is a whole nother story when you actually know people there, people that have put their lives on the line to help this country, and people that have given their lives for these people.
And I'm sure its even more different for the people over there actually doing it, they probally have a much deeper felling about finishing this job, the ones that have actually fought and killed for the new Iraq.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 03:34 PM, ReiperX wrote:

And I'm sure its even more different for the people over there actually doing it, they probally have a much deeper felling about finishing this job, the ones that have actually fought and killed for the new Iraq.

I am kind of in between. On one hand the loss of life is devistating. On the otherhand, everything was constantly getting worse overthere. If we had a crystal ball we could see the long term outcome of leaving it alone or getting involved. Some of us would like to live in our own buble hopping no one would touch it but life is never that simple. The most that we can hope for is that we can give them a gradual change of power and they can (or will) apreciate what we have done for them. You see too many people in anger on tv but it reminds me of the LA riots. People (generally poor people) are rioting partly because they have nothing better to do and partly because they get rilled up and it seems like the thing to do. Sadam has hogged the money and their recources for so long draining the country and the people. If the Iraqis can sell there oil maybe they can go to work and have something to live for. Use the oil for re-constructing their country and putting their people to work. It does not happen over night. It's not democratic or republican.

[antiklaus]

I guess I can understand it. Most 11-year-olds don't open their minds and only listen to mommy and daddy's political views.

Oh, and nice lollipop you've got there.

What are you smoking? MM made a movie to get Bush out of office. That was his purpose, not facts! It's simple.

Just because his purpose was to oust Bush doesnt make his facts any less credible.

What you are saying is like saying that because I made a cake to shove into a person's face that you couldnt eat it.

Eat the cake already... it may be dripping off Bush's face, but its still food.

[chesspeaceface]

This is how the sovereignty in Iraq breaks down:

The interrim government that has now officially replaced the Coalition Provisional Authority and Bremer is technically sovereign. They call the shots on all of the internal affairs in Iraq, except (AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT EXCEPTION) security and finance files. For all intensive purposes, the Bush administration and its mouthpieces are touting sovereignty, when the situation in Iraq is actually that of limited sovereignty. The United States still has Iraq by not only those two puppet strings, but, as was stated before, the occupational force that is still standing on the street corners. The government does definitely have a certain amount of control, but it is a far cry from plenipotentiary.

That info didn't come from Moore's film, it came from Mirza Aman's article "Sovereignty minus two files" from the Bahrain Tribune on May 5th, 2004.

That is fact. The following is opinion.

The Bush administration's interest in Iraq isn't oil. Their interest is getting a democratic (read: American) foothold on the Middle East, which is growing increasingly anti-American all the time. They are afraid that democracy is going to happen on in the Middle East on its own and leaders will be elected on anti-American platforms. Democracy is certainly what the Middle East needs, but not top-down, imperialistic democracy. The foundation of democracy is the will of the people. That is what the administration's warhawks are neglecting.

[gem1]

At 6/30/04 05:17 PM, antiklaus wrote:

What you are saying is like saying that because I made a cake to shove into a person's face that you couldnt eat it.

Eat the cake already... it may be dripping off Bush's face, but its still food.

I am constantly amazed at the lack of maturity of the Kerry suporters!