OT - Inside the Iraqi regime

[QuikSand]

Interesting piece posted, mostly based on interviews with Tariq Aziz:

MSNBC Article Link


I have no idea if what he describes is true, but on this sort of thing I find it hard to imagine what incentive he has to fabricate.

Anyway - I just find it interesting that most of these descriptions make Saddam and his regime sound not like the crazy lunatics that we've had ingrained in our visions, but rather just like shrewd and calculating troublemakers.

I in no way disagree with the consensus that we're better off without this assclown than we were before... but to hear about their debats regarding the actual intent of UN resolutions and that sort of thing - it just gives a little more human and contemplative side to them than we are used to seeing. I thought it was interesting.

[Dutch]

That is interesting. But while many believe Saddam was a good strategist, it sounds like Saddam Hussein had caught himself in the ultimate catch-22. If he proved he had no WMD's, all his enemies would pick on him, and who would stop that? Oh, the tangled webs we weave...

[Radii]

There are a lot of interesting details to munch on in that article... the supposed meetings with the Russians and French that are spoken of are very, very hard to believe but would be a major bombshell if they were true. The fact that every general is reporting that their group didn't have WMD but that they were assured that someone near them did and would use them, is even a little bit amusing to read at this point.

I'm not sure what overall conclusion I'd draw based on the article as a whole, but it is a very very good read.

[Bee]

Why are the meetings with the French and Russians hard to believe? During that time I remember several people actually commenting they suspected such meetings were taking place.

[Glengoyne]

I wasn't posting here during the build up to The war, but I have always been saying that I felt the French and Russians were more interested in lasting good relations with Iraq, than they were interested in enforcing the will of the United Nations. They were looking for some lasting quid pro quo. Of course as the article suggests, those statements could have been made to play into the hand of people like me.


A good read.

[Esquared1]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I wasn't posting here during the build up to The war, but I have always been saying that I felt the French and Russians were more interested in lasting good relations with Iraq, than they were interested in enforcing the will of the United Nations. They were looking for some lasting quid pro quo. Of course as the article suggests, those statements could have been made to play into the hand of people like me.


A good read.

I cannot speak for Paris, but I do remember via NPR that the Moscow loaned Iraq large sums of money over the years, hoping to receive payment back. Certainly, if Washington seized Iraqi assets, Moscow may have believed they would not receive their investment back.

I did agree with the basic rationale of the French and Russians, but did not agree with their underlying motivations.

Each side of the merits of this war has been discussed and argued at length. . . I'll just say I was part of the minority. :P

[Glengoyne]

I am sorry I can't resist

Originally posted by Esquared1
. . . I'll just say I was part of the minority. :P

Loser!

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I wasn't posting here during the build up to The war, but I have always been saying that I felt the French and Russians were more interested in lasting good relations with Iraq, than they were interested in enforcing the will of the United Nations.

For sure the French & Russians had a lot to lose if Iraq was pulverized, I don't think many people have viewed their anti-war stance as that of peacenik moderation as much as simply looking out for number one. The same could be said for the UK's push for war. It's difficult to judge any reports from prisoners but nothing in this article is too unbelievable, good article from MSNBC.

[Buccaneer]

...esp. when France's oil and Russian arms were at stake.

[wbonnell]

The amount of detailed, insider information one can gather about such an even is mind boggling. Imagine the fun our historians will have with contemporary events.

Though much of this article is pure speculation, I suspect that if you overlay this with varying perspectives (including French and Russian), you could build a fairly accurate model of what actually happened. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote that much time to the surreptitious plots of the world's politicians. I still can't believe we have men dying for such a nebulous cause...

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
...esp. when France's oil and Russian arms were at stake.

Would/should a country act in any other way? Who here believes that countries act altruistically?

[Dutch]

I still can't believe we have men dying for such a nebulous cause...

Well, for somebody who doesn't have the time to investigate what that cause was, you sure seem to have enough time to watch headline news.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Would/should a country act in any other way? Who here believes that countries act altruistically?

No. Yes. I think that the invasion and the rebuilding effort currently underway are the greatest humanitarian effort of the 21st Century, but most commentators and politicians are more concerned with who started it than the well-being of the Iraqi people.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
I think that the invasion and the rebuilding effort currently underway are the greatest humanitarian effort of the 21st Century

how hard is that to say a mere few years into it?

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
No. Yes. I think that the invasion and the rebuilding effort currently underway are the greatest humanitarian effort of the 21st Century, but most commentators and politicians are more concerned with who started it than the well-being of the Iraqi people.

Well, there's not much competition; the century is not quite 3 years old.

Unfortunately, because the administration couldn't contain itself, this particular humanitarian effort has resulted in the loss of hundreds to thousands of lives (and counting). You say that the politicians are more concerned with who started the the war. Well, didn't our politicians get us into this war in the first place?

Anyway, if the U.S. were truly altruistic, we'd stop vetoing every stinking U.N Security Council resoultion designed to keep Israel in check. Why is it that the U.S is always the only abstaining (and vetoing) country? Do we not care about the Palenstinians?

[wbonnell]

Does Wal-Mart donate money to the local charity because it genuinely wishes to help the community or does it merely wish to improve its image? Although the donation IS charitable, it does not imply that Wal-Mart is altruistic.

Likewise, did the U.S. invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people or to project its force to that region of the globe? Liberation of the Iraqi doesn't imply altruism on the part of the U.S.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Well, there's not much competition; the century is not quite 3 years old.

Unfortunately, because the administration couldn't contain itself, this particular humanitarian effort has resulted in the loss of hundreds to thousands of lives (and counting). You say that the politicians are more concerned with who started the the war. Well, didn't our politicians get us into this war?

Anyway, if the U.S. were truly altruistic, we'd stop vetoing every stinking U.N Security Council resoultion designed to keep Israel in check. Why is it that the U.S is always the only abstaining (and vetoing) country? Do we not care about the Palenstinians?

This is such an intellectually dishonest argument. What can one say in response to "hundreds to thousands of lives lost (and counting)." The only response sounds pretty inhumane. But let me ask you this.

Was it worth the 25,000 lives lost in the Revolutionary War? After all, we didn't have to fight. And lord knows the politicians (with a few exceptions) didn't take up arms against the British.

Was it worth the 618,000 lives lost in the Civil War? After all, we didn't have to fight that one either, and I don't remember Lincoln or Davis taking part in any battles.

Was it worth the 33,000 lives lost in Korea? All we got out of that war was the return of the status quo and "M*A*S*H", right?

When wondering if our politicians got us into this war, ask yourself two questions: Who invaded Kuwait, and would either Gulf War have been waged without that taking place?

As to why the US tends to side with Israel, why would we side with a group that has repeatedly turned down opportunities to be given their own state? Why would we side with a group that trains children to be terrorists? Why would we side with a group that refuses to recognize that Israel even has a right to exist?

You'll see the US start to side with the Palestinians when they quit listening to Arafat and pay more attention to successful protesters like Ghandi and King.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by wbonnell
.... Why is it that the U.S is always the only abstaining (and vetoing) country? Do we not care about the Palenstinians?

Why should we join in with the Anti-Semitic horde that is the U.N. General Assembly? I am usually one who poo poos the notion of Anti-Semitism behind every door, I laugh at nearly every thing the Anti-Defamation league puts in the public eye. The U.N. General Assembly, and events like the U.N. council on racism is a different story however.

I am whole heartedly on the side of Israel in the conflict there. Why? Because their nation is under attack by a bunch of evil thugs bent on the elimination of Israel. Yes I use the word evil, because it is evil to send someone into a restaraunt to kill civilian men, women, and children. Israel does piss me off every once in a while, when they strike back. Really though, what would the U.S. do if a Mexican gang was lobbing mortar rounds, or sending suicide bombers into El Paso every day?

I would side with the Palestinians if they would try to reign in Hamas, and such. Until a Palestinian Prime Minister takes the fight to Hamas and the other millitant gangs, the Palestinians do not deserve to have their own nation. If they want to be sovereign, they need to become sovereign within their own borders. That means they need to crack down on the criminal elements in their society, and prevent them from attacking their neighbors.

That is why we don't side with the Palestinians. It isn't that we hate them, it is that we cannot abide by their actions.

/threadjack

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Does Wal-Mart donate money to the local charity because it genuinely wishes to help the community or does it merely wish to improve its image? Although the donation IS charitable, it does not imply that Wal-Mart is altruistic.

Likewise, did the U.S. invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people or to project its force to that region of the globe? Liberation of the Iraqi doesn't imply altruism on the part of the U.S.

Dola. Does it matter? Does something have to be done in the spiritu of altruism for it to be a good thing?

As to the US wanting to project its force to that region of the globe, spare me. We're the United States. We don't have to project anything. We went to war because Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions, and we were the ones footing the bill when it came to keeping him in check. We went to war because Iraq was going to pose a continual threat to the region and the United States if we pulled out and Saddam remained in power.

If we were so concerned about "projecting power", I think we probably would have used the full "Shock and Awe" strategy instead of backing off.

[Dutch]

Glen and Cam, back to back to back homeruns.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
This is such an intellectually dishonest argument. What can one say in response to "hundreds to thousands of lives lost (and counting)." The only response sounds pretty inhumane. But let me ask you this.

I wasn't arguing anything. I'm simply asking whether the lost lives are worth it. I'm not so sure...

Was it worth the 25,000 lives lost in the Revolutionary War? After all, we didn't have to fight. And lord knows the politicians (with a few exceptions) didn't take up arms against the British.

The book is out on this one for me. History clearly shows that the average American had less liberty after the war than before.

Was it worth the 618,000 lives lost in the Civil War? After all, we didn't have to fight that one either, and I don't remember Lincoln or Davis taking part in any battles.

Definitely not. This was an atrocity. It's a deplorable event in our nation's history. Nothing more than politicians fighting for power.

Was it worth the 33,000 lives lost in Korea? All we got out of that war was the return of the status quo and "M*A*S*H", right?

33,000 lives lost in vain I'm afraid.

When wondering if our politicians got us into this war, ask yourself two questions: Who invaded Kuwait, and would either Gulf War have been waged without that taking place?

Right- I agree that Iraq was out of control. However, I'm not sure that our most recent reaction was appropriate. Is it that black-and-white for you?

As to why the US tends to side with Israel, why would we side with a group that has repeatedly turned down opportunities to be given their own state? Why would we side with a group that trains children to be terrorists? Why would we side with a group that refuses to recognize that Israel even has a right to exist?

You'll see the US start to side with the Palestinians when they quit listening to Arafat and pay more attention to successful protesters like Ghandi and King.

Given their own state. Last time I checked it was stolen from them...

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Why should we join in with the Anti-Semitic horde that is the U.N. General Assembly? I am usually one who poo poos the notion of Anti-Semitism behind every door, I laugh at nearly every thing the Anti-Defamation league puts in the public eye. The U.N. General Assembly, and events like the U.N. council on racism is a different story however.

I am whole heartedly on the side of Israel in the conflict there. Why? Because their nation is under attack by a bunch of evil thugs bent on the elimination of Israel. Yes I use the word evil, because it is evil to send someone into a restaraunt to kill civilian men, women, and children. Israel does piss me off every once in a while, when they strike back. Really though, what would the U.S. do if a Mexican gang was lobbing mortar rounds, or sending suicide bombers into El Paso every day?

I would side with the Palestinians if they would try to reign in Hamas, and such. Until a Palestinian Prime Minister takes the fight to Hamas and the other millitant gangs, the Palestinians do not deserve to have their own nation. If they want to be sovereign, they need to become sovereign within their own borders. That means they need to crack down on the criminal elements in their society, and prevent them from attacking their neighbors.

That is why we don't side with the Palestinians. It isn't that we hate them, it is that we cannot abide by their actions.

/threadjack

Are you telling me that an entire society is evil? I don't buy it. People are people no matter where they are or which generation they lived.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Dutch
Glen and Cam, back to back to back homeruns.

This is nonsense. This isn't a football game. There are no winners or losers...

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Dola. Does it matter? Does something have to be done in the spiritu of altruism for it to be a good thing?

No, that's what I was trying to say.

As to the US wanting to project its force to that region of the globe, spare me. We're the United States. We don't have to project anything. We went to war because Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions, and we were the ones footing the bill when it came to keeping him in check. We went to war because Iraq was going to pose a continual threat to the region and the United States if we pulled out and Saddam remained in power.

Exactly. I doubt liberation of the Iraqi was not the ultimate factor.

If we were so concerned about "projecting power", I think we probably would have used the full "Shock and Awe" strategy instead of backing off.

For the record, I loathe glorification of war.

[Fritz]

Well,

Quiksand's nice post has quickly become filled with the most idiotic junk posing as reasonable opinion I have seen in a while.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Fritz
Well,

Quiksand's nice post has quickly become filled with the most idiotic junk posing as reasonable opinion I have seen in a while.

Wow. I'm simply a guy trying to figure this world out. I don't claim to hold the Truth, but I assiduously- to the best of my ability- pursue it. I ask honest questions and give honest answers, and I'm told my opinion is junk. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Wow. I'm simply a guy trying to figure this world out. I don't claim to hold the Truth, but I assiduously- to the best of my ability- pursue it. I ask honest questions and give honest answers, and I'm told my opinion is junk. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

I don't recall typing your name

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Are you telling me that an entire society is evil? I don't buy it. People are people no matter where they are or which generation they lived.

No. I am saying the people leading and supporting Hamas, and the other millitant organizations are evil.

[Dutch]

Dutch - Glen and Cam, back to back to back homeruns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wbonnell - This is nonsense. This isn't a football game. There are no winners or losers...

It was my way of saying, "nice post".

Wow. I'm simply a guy trying to figure this world out. I don't claim to hold the Truth, but I assiduously- to the best of my ability- pursue it. I ask honest questions and give honest answers, and I'm told my opinion is junk. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

Actually, for not knowing the truth, you did seem to hold the opinion that American soldiers are dying for absolutely no reason...but that you have absolutely no idea why other than what CNN tells you...which is absolutely nothing or than that soldiers are dying for absolutely no reason.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Dutch
It was my way of saying, "nice post".



Actually, for not knowing the truth, you did seem to hold the opinion that American soldiers are dying for absolutely no reason...but that you have absolutely no idea why other than what CNN tells you...which is absolutely nothing or than that soldiers are dying for absolutely no reason.

Well, I think I said "nebulous cause". And as to where I get my information, I can assure you it's not CNN...

[Dutch]

Right- I agree that Iraq was out of control. However, I'm not sure that our most recent reaction was appropriate. Is it that black-and-white for you?

Ahhh, there is the dilemna! The world is very complicated, there are many factors at work in many different directions with many different angles.

We elect a President to make decisions based on all these variables. The decision that he ends up making sure seems "Black and White" with little thought put into all the different variables.

But then, wouldn't every single possible answer provided by anybody seem to be "Black and White" with little thought to the variables?

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Fritz
how hard is that to say a mere few years into it?

Originally posted by wbonnell
Well, there's not much competition; the century is not quite 3 years old.

It was mostly tongue in cheek because I had to get to History and didn't have time to type out a long response. If this discussion is still going when I get back from Econ, I'll type up a longer response.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Dutch
Ahhh, there is the dilemna! The world is very complicated, there are many factors at work in many different directions with many different angles.

We elect a President to make decisions based on all these variables. The decision that he ends up making sure seems "Black and White" with little thought put into all the different variables.

But then, wouldn't every single possible answer provided by anybody seem to be "Black and White" with little thought to the variables?

Well, one better be damn sure before they sacrifice the lives of other people. Acting hastily in such a situation is ill advised and is my chief complaint of our reaction to the situation.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
It was mostly tongue in cheek because I had to get to History and didn't have time to type out a long response. If this discussion is still going when I get back from Econ, I'll type up a longer response.

Yes, I'd like to hear your perspective.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Fritz
Well,

Quiksand's nice post has quickly become filled with the most idiotic junk posing as reasonable opinion I have seen in a while.

Thanks.

[CamEdwards]

Dola-

Just for the record then.

The Revolutionary War is debatable in terms of whether or not it should have been fought. The Civil War should not have been fought, same with the Korean War.

I can't even wrap my head around that concept. And you might want to talk to a Korean WAr veteran about whether or not his buddies died in vain. You'd be surprised at his answer, becuase believe it or not... we actually DID acheive our goals in Korea.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Dola-

Just for the record then.

The Revolutionary War is debatable in terms of whether or not it should have been fought. The Civil War should not have been fought, same with the Korean War.

I can't even wrap my head around that concept. And you might want to talk to a Korean WAr veteran about whether or not his buddies died in vain. You'd be surprised at his answer, becuase believe it or not... we actually DID acheive our goals in Korea.

Sorry, I don't wish to suggest that our soldiers didn't fight valiantly. And I respect them greatly. Still, I can't shake the feeling that their death was meaningless. I will say that there is much I need to learn about that- mostly forgotten- war. So, in your opinion, what exactly were our goals?

[CamEdwards]

Our goal was to stop the North Koreans from taking over South Korea. We had no mandate to "Destroy" North Korea, merely to keep them in check. Whether or not that was a good idea is debatable, of course, but those were the parameters.

I don't think you were discounting the solderis who fought. It's just been my experience that those who fought in the Korean War get awfully pissed off at people talking about it when they haven't the slightest clue about the war. Note... I say I speak from experience.

[BishopMVP]

My opinion pre-war was that if we could save many thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and greatly improve the life of most of the rest of that country while losing a small number of American lives in the short run, and probably increasing our security for the long-run, we should do it. I believe all these have occurred.

It is certain in my mind that Saddam Hussein, or on the chance he died, Uday and Qusay, would have continued to kill thousands of innocent citizens every year. It is certain in my mind that the US Army has not done this. I am certain that the lives of almost all Iraqis (excluding those close to Saddam) have improved and are improving under the occupation, and I am certain most of them realize this.

I actually thought more American soldiers would die in this conflict, and I am glad that this did not occur. I was guessing about 1-5,000 and so far there have been far fewer. I think that this was, if not the best fought war, certainly up there.

I think that American occupation has been greatly beneficial everywhere it has occurred. Look at West Germany versus East Germany. Look at South Korea versus North Korea. Look at what happened in Japan and what happened in Vietnam when we didn't finish the job. I believe it is succeeding in Iraq, mainly due to the ability and work of ordinary soldiers and field commanders, not 4 and 5-star Generals.

I have never and still don't fear for my safety from terrorists, and I don't think removing Saddam alone will that make much of a difference in the frequency/success of future terrorist targets on "American interests." I do believe that the flypaper theory is working out, and that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawing terrorists from the surrounding area, and I would much rather have these terrorists attacking American troops than tourists because they are much better prepared to deal with them.

I believe that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN Sanctions, but that alone wasn't enough to justify the war. However, the only other feasable option was the continuation of sanctions, and I am certain that these hurt the average Iraqi greatly while not affecting Saddam at all. I don't think Bush ever intentionally lied or misled the public in the leadup to the war. With regards to the situation in Iraq I don't think it would matter anyway. Hatred or dislike or Bush and his policies is a matter for the next election, not something that should affect your thinking on Iraq, especially with regards to the aid package currently in Congress.

I believe most opponents of the war were either uninformed, duplicitous in their motives and/or wanted to knock down America. I am certain that France, Russia and Germany have been in violation of the sanctions over the last decade, and shipping arms/negotiating oil contracts. I think that France especially wants to see the downfall of American dominance and have been working to this end, but I can't prove this. The protest groups, especially ANSWER, don't really care about the Iraqi people at all. They are a front for the Workers World Party, a group that supports Kim Jong Il and split with the Communist Party when it refused to support Soviet intervention to crush the Hungarian uprising in 1956.

I am certain that the UN is ineffective. It allowed massacres to occur in Rwanda and Srebrenica, as well as other places. I believe it is more of a club that supports dictators and their ilk than one that should be looked to for moral clarity. I feel this is the most important issue in the 2004 election, and I am certain I will not vote for any candidate who does not believe this as well.

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I dislike both sides. I believe that Israel did illegally take land and is treating the Palestinians like shit, but until the Palestinians begin practicing non-violent resistance or at least stop celebrating the deaths of Americans I will not support them. I also think that

Lastly, I believe that the enemies of the US, such as Al-Qaeda, believe we are weak and we will leave if they keep slowly kiling people. They believe this because of Vietnam and more recently Mogadishu. They also believe this because of the media, which seems inordinately anti-Bush and anti-War. They must be proven wrong, and this can only be done by succeeding in Iraq.

I realize this was long (probably my longest post here ) and not as easily readable or comprehensive as I would like. If you want to argue any of the premises contained, I would be glad to.

[CamEdwards]

nice post Bishop.

[Buccaneer]

william, I have a lot of respect for you but your views on the Amer Revolution and Civil War come from an extremist revisionistic viewpoint.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
nice post Bishop.

Thanks. I've been going over this in my mind the last couple days because I'm thinking about writing something to put in the school paper. More along the lines of we have to stay in Iraq and less about the UN/pre-war stuff, and back it up with a lot of evidence. I want to keep it non-partisan, but reading shit like this Yes, I did claim Bush is to blame for 9/11 because of his response in its aftermath almost every day makes me want to pop off and call these writers asshats However, I feel that the people that actually read the paper deserve more than partisan mud-slinging.

[Killebrew]

Attacking Iraq for humanitarian purposes was a nice story for getting people on board the war train, but I would be very surprised if anyone here believes the attack was done for humanitarian purposes. There are also many that say things were better off for the Iraqi people before the attack, but it's really impossible to judge that at this early stage in the occupation/liberation/whatever. About the fly-paper theory, that is a positive spin on the Iraq situation, but certainly not the planned strategy and in fact the exact opposite of one of the initial goals - stabilizing the middle east. Perhaps it's too early to judge the merits of the fly paper theory as well. The awkward part about some of the reasons people give for staying the course in Iraq no matter what is that if you make this the site of the last battle of good versus evil it becomes near impossible to leave. If it ends up like a retreat then the middle east is less stable than before the attack, and the USA more hated and less feared than before the attack. That is an awkward angle for people like myself that were bitterly opposed to the war but now get concerned when public opinion polls state more and more people want to just pull out and leave the area in near anarchy. That is also a troubling scenario for countries much nearer the middle east like, oh say all European countries.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Thanks. I've been going over this in my mind the last couple days because I'm thinking about writing something to put in the school paper. More along the lines of we have to stay in Iraq and less about the UN/pre-war stuff, and back it up with a lot of evidence. I want to keep it non-partisan, but reading shit like this Yes, I did claim Bush is to blame for 9/11 because of his response in its aftermath almost every day makes me want to pop off and call these writers asshats However, I feel that the people that actually read the paper deserve more than partisan mud-slinging.

Thats strange, because its the exact opposite at my school.

Oh, and an opinion writer for the Greenville News proclaimed that my liberal arts education is a complete failure and it fails to provide me correct history lessons. The person said I am taught a revisionist history instead of an accurate history of Western Civilization.

Nevermind that my Western Civ was all year, and that we spent a term on the pre-Greecian ancients, Greece/Rome and the ilk, then one on the more modern part of Western Civ. I swear, some people really just need to actually have an idea of what they talk about. Obviously this is not a thorough enough history lesson.

Sorry for the tangent, but that really pissed me off and I needed to vent... I think you guys can see why I'm not Conservative, b/c everything I hear in this part of the country is complete bullshit.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Thats strange, because its the exact opposite at my school.

Oh, and an opinion writer for the Greenville News proclaimed that my liberal arts education is a complete failure and it fails to provide me correct history lessons. The person said I am taught a revisionist history instead of an accurate history of Western Civilization.

Nevermind that my Western Civ was all year, and that we spent a term on the pre-Greecian ancients, Greece/Rome and the ilk, then one on the more modern part of Western Civ. I swear, some people really just need to actually have an idea of what they talk about. Obviously this is not a thorough enough history lesson.

Sorry for the tangent, but that really pissed me off and I needed to vent... I think you guys can see why I'm not Conservative, b/c everything I hear in this part of the country is complete bullshit.

Easy,

I just want you to know that I typed out three different responses and deleted them all because of general snarkiness on my part. Mom always said if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all. So...

Nice use of ellipses.

[Easy Mac]

Yeah, I'm too tired to actually really separate my sentences. Its really one long stream of consciousness rant, so I think that is shown better with ellipses rather than spearate sentences denoting separate thoughts.

And not all conservative ideology is bullshit, just the stuff I constantly hear here.

[Easy Mac]

Oh, and general snarkiness is fine, just don't go O'Reilly on me.

[CamEdwards]

O'Reilly's a weenie.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
O'Reilly's a weenie.

whats your radio station? I heard you were on the web? what time?

[tucker342]

My big problem with this war, is the amount of lieing that Bush did to convince us to go to war. It would have been so much better if he would've just admitted that the whole point of the war was to boost his ratings.