posted on February 1, 2005 09:55:08 AM new
Read your comments, Linda. Maybe you will begin to realize what you are doing when you are left here to talk to yourself.
posted on February 1, 2005 11:37:28 AM new
Linda, I mentioned those names because I was trying to think of everyone who's voiced their opinions about Afghanistan & Iraq. From my list, all these people have voiced the same opinion - thumbs up with Afghanistan, thumbs up with finding Osama, thumbs up with getting rid of Saddam, but thumbs down on going to war with Iraq. I'm not trying to put words in anyones mouth - this is from what they've posted. Fenix & Bunni feel the same way. They all support the troops, but don't support the war.
As for the enemy, the enemy was Osama, so a whole war in another unrelated country was started. I know you're way ahead of us on this, but I'm still trying to figure out why Iraq was attacked. (Wouldn't it have been the best time for Iraq to use their weapons & womd if they were being attacked?) So who is the enemy? Is it the insurgents? Who is the U.S. protecting it's citizens from? Osama?
posted on February 1, 2005 11:55:26 AM new
Helen - surely you don't think Linda is the only poster on these boards who insults. Just about everyone here throws around insults so I can't imagine why someone would be "run off" just from Linda's posts.
My own opinion is that most of the insulting that goes on here borders on pathetic, child-like behavior. There are some posters who post nothing but insults as they follow other posters around from thread to thread, rarely addressing the topic and always attacking the poster. I don't think people are "run off" as much as they just don't bother to get invlolved with such lameness.
posted on February 1, 2005 11:55:57 AM newI don't have to ....they prove it themselves, by their own words. Want to find a thread where kiara, helen, cheryl etc. ACTUALLY SAID THEY SUPPORTED EITHER WAR. I never read one of them saying that
Linda uses the philosphy that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. That is what she is getting at with her conclusions above.
Funny, when crowfarm used the same type of philosphy on Linda, Linda got all bent out of shape.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 1, 2005 12:04:55 PM new
Fiset, sometimes you have to act childish in order to get the other side to understand you. Acting like an adult doesn't work on some here.
posted on February 1, 2005 01:04:19 PM newOh ..uh, excuse me everyone...I'm just looking around here for a spare 9 BILLION dollars.......kinda missing in Iraq....let's see how do you LOSE 9 BIL ? Let's see ....maybe it was those cardboard voting booths.....no, not really , you see, there isn't ANYTHING to show where that 9 BILLION of our money went !!!!!!!!!!!!
YIKES!! Sorry, I missed this earlier post.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The former US-led Coalition Provisional Authority headed by American Paul Bremer lost track of nearly nine billion dollars it transferred to Iraqi government ministries to a black hole of fraud, kickbacks and fund misappropriation, according to Time magazine.
In a report to hit US newsstands Monday, Time reports that the CPA left "large portions of the 8.8 billion Iraqi treasury open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds," citing a US inspector general's audit.
The report was written by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen, a high-powered lawyer from Texas, it said.
Time said Bowen's audit cites Bremer's oversight of the CPA with lax accounting and inadequate disclosure. WASHINGTON (AFP) - The former US-led Coalition Provisional Authority headed by American Paul Bremer lost track of nearly nine billion dollars it transferred to Iraqi government ministries to a black hole of fraud, kickbacks and fund misappropriation, according to Time magazine.
In a report to hit US newsstands Monday, Time reports that the CPA left "large portions of the 8.8 billion Iraqi treasury open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds," citing a US inspector general's audit.
The report was written by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen, a high-powered lawyer from Texas, it said.
Time said Bowen's audit cites Bremer's oversight of the CPA with lax accounting and inadequate disclosure.
posted on February 1, 2005 02:35:03 PM new
Yup, Maggie, NINE BILLION DOLLARS of OUR money just disappeared.
One problem with distributing this money to the IRAQIS who needed it was that the people put in charge were college age kids who were Republican interns(this was there little reward). No one knew how to distribute it. Paul Bremer didn't know. There were NO instructions in place.
They know that some went to pay people who didn't exist.
But I suppose it just trickled away in red tape, graft, beer, and pizza parties.........
And these are the people who want to "fix" Social Security !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They want to take 1 TRILLION dollars to "fix" Social Security.....where is THAT money coming from? Why not just put a trillion INTO Social Security and it'll never run out.
posted on February 1, 2005 11:59:49 PM new
Thanks for remembering, Bunni. The troops were being discussed and Linda said that maybe women are serving today too. I said yes, they are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and posted the link.
posted on February 2, 2005 01:41:34 AM new
kiara - What you're trying to do here is make others think that I, a mother of a Marine, the daughter of a WOMAN who served as a nurse in WWII, didn't knowwasn't aware women serve in our Armed Forces or that I for some reason would have said they don't. It's obviously something you've twisted in your own little mind AGAIN. [b]I don't think there's a person alive in the US who would think or say what you're accusing me of not being aware of and some Canadian, like you, had to inform me that they do.
And I notice how you can post links when you WANT to try and make OTHERS look bad - to show them up. And how you DEMAND them from others when it applies to you....but we haven't seen THIS accusation proved yet.
How do you usually say it to others? PROVE IT or shut up? But for some reason that doesn't apply to you? right...
It's that ol' double standard again.
crowfarm has NO credibility for being truthful, about ANYTHING she's EVER said I think, feel or do. And bunni's not remembering exactly ALL that must have been said. She was MISTAKEN the last time she thought she remembered something said in the past. But bunni was BIG enough to admit she was incorrect and admit that I had remembered the situation correctly. I seriously doubt you'll be that way when you discover you are WRONG...you're just NOT that type of person.
But I think you already KNOW you're making this up and that's why you won't POST your proof...THE LINK that proves I wasn't aware women serve in our Armed Forces.
That's just TOO funny.
Are you not posting the link because you don't want people to see how you play your little childish games, kiara?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 2, 2005 02:17:53 AM new
KD - What I feel you have avoided addressing is what I said about how some of those on your list have NOT make encouraging comments about the successes our troops have been making....both in Afghanistan and Iraq and while they CLAIM to support them. I feel NO credit has been given to them. And when discouraging remarks ARE/HAVE BEEN MADE about our SOLDIERS ACTIONS....I haven't see any of those come to the DEFENCE of our troops.
These are the people who choose to CLAIM they support THEM. I'm NOT talking about who supported/agreed with which war we went into. I'm aware of who agreed with going into one, the other or both. That's NOT the point I'm making.
--------------
I repeat...
But I feel your pain as I watch some here bash our soldiers efforts rather than offering words of support for their successful missions. Like this last one....only more bitching. Over and over and over again...no words of "I hope they're successful...in Fallujah..."I hope they're successful in protecting the citizens so they can vote....nope only criticisms of how many innocent civilians they're killing...the poor Iraqi's whose homes they're invading....the torture of the Iraqi captives...our soldiers are torturers. They're bombing and killing babies. Posting of pictures of how terrible what our soldiers have done....deformed babies...burnt babies...On and on about all the terrible things our troops are doing. I don't consider that support for our troops in any way, shape or form. NO WAY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 2, 2005 03:25:35 AM new
As poor linduh rants into the night about how everybody lies about her, smiley faces once again proclaiming her descent into hysteria....here's her point........
""""innocent civilians they're killing...the poor Iraqi's whose homes they're invading....the torture of the Iraqi captives...our soldiers are torturers. They're bombing and killing babies. Posting of pictures of how terrible what our soldiers have done....deformed babies...burnt babies...On and on about all the terrible things our troops are doing. ""
posted on February 2, 2005 05:49:18 AM new
Yes crowfarm that is what you are. They are the most stupid people in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I am happy you can relate to your name.
posted on February 2, 2005 06:01:24 AM new
No twelve, I have never doubted that. And I support freedom of speech.
But I'm constantly 'called' on how I don't see the postings of many here on the left to be 'supportive of our troops, themselves'....and when I list the reasons why and their own words that convinced me of that [formed my opinion of whether they truly support our troops or not]...I'm blasted for calling them on what they've previously said.
Not one of them has produced any supportive posts where they have praised them for their efforts or accomplishments in either war. And no one has rebutted what I've seen posted here time and time again...accusing our troops of doing.
So....I'm exercising MY freedom of speech and am calling them on it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 2, 2005 08:55:32 AM new
I have no reason to lie, Linda. I haven't done it yet and I'm not about to start.
You said maybe women were serving today and I posted the info and I remember being surprised you became so angry and told me I was being critical and petty and accused me of going off topic by posting it. Awhile later you came back and claimed that you knew women served which I have no doubt...... I think you were just unaware that they were in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the males. You were still angry and told me to grow up and called me on my stupidity which you usually do so I posted the bouncing cheeky smiley.
I didn't post the link yesterday because I couldn't find it..... but here it is.
posted on February 2, 2005 09:18:22 AM new
BTW, you're exercising your freedom of speech alright but you're doing it in all the wrong ways by posting garbage you've made up in your head about what you think some of the rest of us believe or who we support and don't support and then you try to back it up with your links to garbage propaganda websites along with that insane smiley.
The rest of us can say what's on our own minds and let others judge for themselves. You sit here 24/7 trying to be an authority on each and every topic and spouting your views and when you run out of them, you start spouting my views as you see them and what you think I'm thinking and who you think I am. Trust me, I don't need you for my mouthpiece, I can speak for myself.
Feb. 1, 2005 | The elections held on Jan. 30 in Iraq were deeply flawed as a democratic process, but they represent a political earthquake in Iraq and in the Middle East. The old Shiite seminary city of Najaf, south of Baghdad, appears poised to emerge as Iraq's second capital. For the first time in the Arab Middle East, a Shiite majority has come to power. A Shiite-dominated Parliament in Iraq challenges the implicit Sunni biases of Arab nationalism as it was formulated in Cairo and Algiers. And it will force Iraqis to deal straightforwardly with the multicultural character of their national society, something the pan-Arab Baath Party either papered over or actively attempted to erase. The road ahead is extremely dangerous: Overreaching or miscalculation by any of the involved parties could lead to a crisis, even to civil war. And America's role in the new Iraq is uncertain.
Despite the loftiness of the political rhetoric and the courage and idealism of ordinary voters, the process was so marred by irregularities as sometimes to border on the absurd. The party lists were announced, but the actual candidates running on these lists had to remain anonymous because of security concerns. Known candidates received death threats and some assassination attempts were reported. So the voters selected lists by vague criteria such as their top leaders, who were known to the public, or general political orientation.
Late in the election season, several politicians discovered that they had been listed without their permission and angrily demanded that the lists withdraw their names. So not only were the candidates mostly anonymous, but some persons were running without knowing it. These irregularities made the process less like an election (where there is lively campaigning by known candidates and issues can be debated in public) and more like a referendum among shadowy party lists.
Nevertheless, enough was known about the major party and coalition lists to allow most Iraqis to make a decision. The United Iraqi Alliance was one of six major coalitions, grouping the most important of the Shiite religious parties. Shiites, although they constitute a majority of Iraqis, had never before had the prospect of real political power. Formed under the auspices of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who appointed a six-man negotiating committee in an attempt to unite the Shiite vote, the UIA used the ayatollah's image relentlessly in its campaign advertising. Religious Shiites got the word to vote for "No. 169," the number given the UIA on the ballot, and were carefully informed that it was represented by the symbol for a candle. Its constituent parties, such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party, had in the past struggled to create an Islamic republic under Saddam's harsh repression. Most of them were more used to the technique of the clandestine cell and the paramilitary strike than to the hurly-burly of public campaigning.
Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, an old asset of the American Central Intelligence Agency, led a list of ex-Baathists and secularists, both Shiite and Sunni. For those Iraqis who yearned for a strongman and valued law and order, Allawi's list had a certain appeal. In the north, the Kurdish parties formed a coalition that would attract virtually all of the Kurdish votes (they form about 15 percent of the Iraqi population). The Sunni Arab interim president, Ghazi al-Yawir, also formed a list, the "Iraqis," which had a decidedly secular cast.
The turnout for the elections was higher than had been predicted by the Iraqi Electoral Commission, which had suggested that about half of the eligible voters, or 6 to 7 million, would come out. By the Monday after the Jan. 30 elections, the commission was estimating that about 8 million, or 57 percent of the eligible voters, had cast ballots. This estimate was not founded on any exact statistics, which had to await the counting of the ballots, but appears to have been little more than a guess. The commission's earliest guess was 72 percent, a clear error. In any case, it seems clear that Kurds and Shiites came out in great numbers, and both will do well in Parliament.
As expected, voting was extremely light in the Sunni Arab areas. In Babil province, the trouble spots of Latifiyah and Mahmudiyah avoided violence, but few voters ventured out. The Arabs of Kirkuk, angry about a ruling allowing Kurds who used to reside in the city to vote in local elections, for the most part boycotted the process. In Mosul, the Arab quarters in the west saw firefights, though Kurds and Turkmens came out to vote in the eastern parts of the city. The four polling stations in Baghdad's Sunni Adhamiyah district did not even bother to open. Polling stations in Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit and Beiji were reported to be largely empty all day. In the sizable city of Ramadi, only 300 ballots were cast.
The Sunni Arabs of Samarra, a city of some 200,000, cast only 1,400 ballots. The U.S. military had conducted operations in Samarra in October as a prelude for its November campaign against Fallujah, insisting that these military actions would prepare the way for successful elections in these cities. Most of Fallujah was in refugee camps by the time of the elections, and a sullen and angry Sunni Arab population largely rejected the polls as illegitimate because they were conducted under foreign military occupation. The threats brandished by the remnants of the Baath military, which is waging a guerrilla war against the United States and the new order, also took their toll.
The guerrilla war being waged by some Sunni Arabs will not end with the elections. Their leadership is committed to destabilizing the country, pushing the Americans back out, and mounting yet another coup. The resistance consists largely of ex-Baath military along with some religious radicals (very few of whom are foreigners). They have enough munitions, money and know-how to fight for years, though in the end they will lose. The Sunni Arab populace continues largely to support the guerrillas. Over half in a recent poll said that attacks on the U.S. military in Iraq are legitimate.
One disturbing trend in this election was the reinforcement of ethnic political identity. Iraq is a diverse society, but has most often sought forms of politics that deemphasize ethnicity. The price of such an approach, however, has often been authoritarian rule, as under the pan-Arab Baath Party that ruled from 1968 to 2003. In the north of Iraq, Kurds predominate. They do not speak Arabic as their mother tongue but rather an Indo-European language related to Persian (and distantly to English). Their Islam is mystical, traditional and somewhat rural, and most of them are not very interested in the minutiae of religious law. In recent years they have urbanized, as at Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah, but have developed a relatively liberal approach to Islam and politics. Kurds had long had separatist tendencies and faced severe repression from Baghdad. Under the American no-fly zone of the 1990s, they developed a Kurdistan Regional Assembly, virtually a semiautonomous government, and now fear being reintegrated into Arab Iraq as second-class citizens.
The center-north of Iraq is dominated by Sunni Arabs. Arabs are simply populations that speak Arabic as their native language; they are not a racial category. Sunnis constitute some 90 percent of the Muslims in the world, but are a minority of 20 percent in Iraq. They honor four early "rightly guided" caliphs, or vicars, of the prophet Mohammed and lack a strict clerical hierarchy. Sunni reformists often resemble Protestants in rejecting saint-worship and mediation between God and human beings.
East Baghdad and the south are Shiite Arab territory. Shiites honor the prophet's son-in-law and cousin, Ali, as the rightful successor of Mohammed, and invest the descendants of the prophet with special honor. The Iraqi Shiites do have a clerical hierarchy, at the pinnacle of which is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the chief source of religious authority.
In Iraq, the Sunni Arabs have traditionally predominated, and they have held political power until Jan. 30. During the past three centuries, a conversion movement among tribes in the south has produced a Shiite majority in Iraq. But the Shiites were most often poor, rural and relatively powerless. In the past half-century, many have moved to the cities, gained modern educations, and thrown up religious parties that aim to establish an Islamic republic with a Shiite cast. These parties joined together to form the United Iraqi Alliance.
The UIA appears to have done extremely well in many Iraqi provinces and may well dominate the new Parliament. Because the Sunni Arabs did not come out in force to vote, the Shiite religious vote was magnified. That is, the electoral system is such that parties are seated in Parliament in accordance with their proportion of the national vote. If a party gets 10 percent, it will get about 27 seats. Because of the proportional nature of the election, if one group boycotts, the other groups do even better. The Shiite leadership will try to reach out to the Sunni Arab politicians, including them in the new government and in the constitution-drafting process. But since the Sunnis will have relatively few seats in Parliament, they may be even more sullen than before. Moreover, the politics of the UIA may not be to their liking.
If the United Iraqi Alliance can form a government, probably in coalition with smaller parties, it will almost certainly move in two controversial directions. First, it will seek to implement religious law in the place of civil law for matters of personal status, and possibly in other realms, such as commerce. Islamic law has provisions for matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony and so forth. Muslim fundamentalists throughout the world have adopted as one of their main political goals the repeal of civil laws that were most often adopted during or just after the age of European colonialism (roughly from the mid-1700s until the 1960s), and to replace them with a rigid and often medieval interpretation of Islamic law.
This form of Islamic law (which in other hands can be dynamic and innovative) would typically deny divorced women any inheritance, give girls half the inheritance received by their brothers, restrict women's right to initiate divorce, restrict women's appearance in public, and make the testimony of women in court worth half that of a man. Middle-class Sunni Arabs and educated women, along with most Kurds, would likely strongly resist this initiative. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, among the main Shiite parties, and Grand Ayatollah Sistani have already telegraphed their desire for this change.
The other big political fight likely to ensue in the new, Shiite-dominated Parliament is over a centralized government versus a loose federation. The Kurds want what they call a "Canada" model, or perhaps one modeled on the Swiss cantons, in which the central government cedes many rights to the provinces. In American terms, the Kurds want "states' rights." Their maximal demands are the creation of a Kurdish super-province, Kurdistan, on an ethnic basis; the joining to Kurdistan of the oil-rich Kirkuk area; no federal troops on Kurdistan soil; and the retention of petroleum profits inside the Kurdistan province.
In contrast, the Shiite political traditions in Iraq have all favored a strong central government, and Baghdad and Najaf are unlikely to want to give away so much to "Kurdistan." Since the Kurds will be well represented in Parliament, have a big, well-trained paramilitary, and have a veto over any new constitution, this particular struggle is one they will not concede without a fight.
Although the vast majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country immediately or soon after Parliament is seated, according to a recent Zogby poll, it seems unlikely that the new political class will call for a precipitate U.S. withdrawal. They are still afraid of being assassinated by the guerrillas. Over time a split may develop between the rank and file, impatient for an American departure, and politicians who still depend on U.S. forces for their own protection. When Iraqi leaders feel strong enough to deal with the guerrillas by themselves, they will have a strong impetus to ask the United States to leave altogether. All Iraqis remember Abu Ghraib and other missteps of the U.S. military in their country.
The new Iraq is forming, but its formation will involve struggle as well as compromise, strong stands as well as bargaining. How successful post-Saddam Iraq is depends very much on whether all groups are mature enough to make the necessary compromises and strike a balance between the religious and secular, and between the center and the provinces.
posted on February 2, 2005 11:56:06 AM new
kiara - I appreciate you posting the link....but I think it goes to show exactly what I have been saying to you.
NO WHERE DO I SAY WOMEN DIDN'T SERVE in the military. No where...you got petty and called me on how I worded my post....so I edited it to make you happy. You complain about everything rather than speaking to the topics on the threads.
posted on October 17, 2004 04:25:54 PM edit
kiara, only you and cf would lower yourselves and show your complete stupidity and pettiness that would even suggest I might think women don't serve.
Grow up...
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 17, 2004 04:28 PM ]
----
So that's you taking it that I'm SAYING women don't serve? I was laughing at your stupidy then and I still am.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 2, 2005 12:39:50 PM new
Linda, I am talking about your very first post in that thread about "maybe women serving"...... the unedited post. It's not about the edited one but I think you know that already.
Now please leave my name out of any future posts where you categorize others with your simplistic views and quit trying to speak about who you think I am and what I think, because you obviously know nothing about me.
posted on February 2, 2005 02:16:27 PM new
kiara - You were playing games in that thread just like you always do.
You come into a thread, not to post on the topic, but rather to 'pick a fight, only be sarcastic or say something totally off the wall', and you did so again in that Oct. 2004 thread.
I posted 'maybe women' because not all units of our Armed Forces allow women on the front lines....they serve as backup support. Since I had already let everyone know in previous posts that I had a son whose been in the Marines for 8 years....it was reasonable that they could assume I KNEW women also served.
But was that your assumption, or cf's assumption or logansdad's assumption. NO. You were all playing games and supporting each other in the 'Linda doesn't really have a son in the service' game.
Just because you came into that thread where I was praising that soldier, something the lefties here rarely do...YOU had to jump in and start with your assumptions about my post.
I found it to be more of your typical pettiness that you often display...while attacking me...so I ignored it at first I have many times asked you to ignore my posts and you have said you don't want to. Fine...that's your choice. But don't think because you post a falsehood [lie] about an assumption YOU'VE made ...that there is some requirement I have to answer or defend myself to you.
I am not required to be here 24/7 nor required to answer each and every post that's put to me. I didn't originally answer your 'game playing' post because I didn't feel it was necessary. So you saw that and decide to make a false claim about WHAT I KNEW AND WHAT I DIDN'T KNOW. YOUR ASSUMPTION, kiara...NOT THE TRUTH.
That's why I replied to you the way I did....stating I found it laughable that you would even suggest such a thing. And somehow you take that as confirmation you were right in your assumption.
Choose to believe what you want. I believe it was just more of your constant harrassment of my posts rather than getting into conversation or addressing the thread topic.
And as to your request....I will repeat back to you what you've said to me so many times and that is....I will post what I want, when I want and you can choose to either ignore or not. But I will post whatever I wish to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
Linda_K posted on October 17, 2004 04:25:54 PM edit
kiara, only you and cf would lower yourselves and show your complete stupidity and pettiness that would even suggest I might think women don't serve.
Grow up...
posted on February 2, 2005 03:12:46 PM new
You are missing the point I'm trying to make, Linda. You've built a profile of anti-American, hate-filled, socialistic, pacifistic, communistic, un-American, extremist, left-wing radicals that are bashing the troops and the government. Then you rally as often as possible against that group and rant about what they do and don't believe in which is fine if you wish to do that.
BUT you have chosen to put my name and others here on some of those people in that profile you've built in your mind. Some of us have requested that you remove our names because we don't fit in the classification you have built for us and we don't approve of the way you have labeled us.
I don't fit the profile you've been building about me for several years (including all the Canada BS) and to back it up without posting about my personal life I've used only a few examples to show you that I do support the troops and worry about their safety and want them to come home as soon as possible.
But you are focusing on only one sentence of all my posts here and trying to make a big deal of it, while you keep calling me stupid and a liar. You are missing the point.
So to make this simple, please don't mention my name at all in the future........ leave me out of your rants and perhaps put me on ignore.
Thank you.
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
