|
Grex > Agora56 > #2: General Announcements - Winter 2005/06 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 253 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 88 of 253:
| 
Jan 30 04:55 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:84: I think they were simply fed up with the corruption in
their current government.
This is a bit of a learning experience for Bush -- that when you give
people a democracy, they may not always vote the way we want them to.
He seemed really flustered in his press conference.
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 253:
|
Jan 30 05:32 UTC 2006 |
Everybody knows that Iraq was a fundie islamic country which was repressed
from making political influence under Saddam's dictatorship. The results of
this election are what the Saudi people have wanted and what al Qaeda wants.
Usama's offer of a truce stems directly from that fact.
The Saudi people are running this show. Don't forget it. Saudi Arabia
attacked us on 9/11...not terrorists nor some 6'7 boogeyman with failing
kidneys. If it weren't for the Bush ties to the Saudis, our troops would be
marching through Riyadh instead of Baghdad. Hell, Baghdad had a synagogue
and xtian churches under Saddam and he posed no threat to the USA. It was
all about what the Saudis want.
Saudi Arabia attacked the USA
|
mcnally
|
|
response 90 of 253:
|
Jan 30 08:14 UTC 2006 |
re #89:
> Everybody knows that Iraq was a fundie islamic country which was
> repressed from making political influence under Saddam's dictatorship.
I don't know that. In fact I really don't believe that to be the case,
assuming I'm parsing your rather odd sentence correctly.. Claiming that
Iraq was dominated by fundamentalists who were kept in check only by Saddam
pretty directly conflicts with things we know about pre-Kuwait-invasion
Iraq, such as the very high (for the region) rates of education and
professional opportunities for women.
Things have changed substantially since Iraq invaded, and was subsequently
driven out of, Kuwait, however. For one, Saddam Hussein adopted a more
pro-Islam stance in an effort to shore up support internally and regain
support in the region. But far more importantly, the removal of Saddam
created a power vacuum that many groups rushed to fill. Sunni and Shiite
Islamists, aided respectively by different parties outside Iraq, were two
of the leading blocs to gain influence in the power grab after Saddam's
removal.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 253:
|
Jan 30 18:15 UTC 2006 |
re #90
assuming I'm parsing your rather odd sentence correctly.. Claiming that
Iraq was dominated by fundamentalists who were kept in check only by Saddam
pretty directly conflicts with things we know about pre-Kuwait-invasion
Iraq, such as the very high (for the region) rates of education and
professional opportunities for women.
I didn't insinuate there was any dominance beyond the dictatorship. The
"preference" of citizens is that of Fundies, though. The jails were full of
the religiously outspoken. Iraq was run by infidels under Hussein and the
only saving grace for him was to give low rent to Palestinians.
And yes, I agree the vacuum was filled by extremism but I disagree that it
was solely aided by outside entities. If you believe the "insurgents" are
all foreigners then the math just doesn't add up on whole entire cities
favoring them. I think the reality is that Saudi is about to implode under
the Fundies and has been a losing ally ever since Bill Casey died. The Bush
regime is losing their grip and misinterpreted Iraq as an easy aquisition
alternative. Right there greasing the wheels of that power framework is the
Bush regime..just like they did for decades with House of Saud. Both places
being places you can expect a few hundred beheadings annually. It has nothing
to do with "Freedom on the March" and everything to do with big contracts.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 92 of 253:
|
Jan 30 18:23 UTC 2006 |
Obviously Tod knows a heck of a lot more about Iraq than I do, but here
is something I don't understand. If the insurgents want a fundie
government in Iraq, and that is what the USA is giving them, why are
they attacking us?
|
twenex
|
|
response 93 of 253:
|
Jan 30 18:26 UTC 2006 |
Todd is an Arab-hater.
|
tod
|
|
response 94 of 253:
|
Jan 30 18:48 UTC 2006 |
re #92
why are
they attacking us?
The occupying forces are always going to be fair game if their first name
isn't "Amir". Here's an example for you: Why was Daniel Pearl beheaded?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 95 of 253:
|
Jan 30 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Okay, so they're attacking us not for what we're doing, but for who we
are. So...why are they attacking Iraqi police?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 96 of 253:
|
Jan 30 19:13 UTC 2006 |
to discourage them from joining.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 253:
|
Jan 30 19:26 UTC 2006 |
re #95
You know..the power framework that is being greased which I referenced earlier
would probably include a police force of some kind. Another house of Saud
would make the Bush folks happy but it probably wont happen that way.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 98 of 253:
|
Jan 31 03:11 UTC 2006 |
They are attacking the iraqi-police cos in all probablity they are seen as
traitors who have joined the foreign invaders.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 99 of 253:
|
Jan 31 03:42 UTC 2006 |
Are the insurgents well organized?
|
tod
|
|
response 100 of 253:
|
Jan 31 05:25 UTC 2006 |
They're in alphabetical order by date of birth
|
albaugh
|
|
response 101 of 253:
|
Jan 31 17:55 UTC 2006 |
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:30:39 -0500
From: CNN Breaking News <BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM>
-- Coretta Scott King, wife of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
has died, a PR company for the King family says.
|
tod
|
|
response 102 of 253:
|
Jan 31 18:25 UTC 2006 |
I didn't know she was still alive.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 103 of 253:
|
Jan 31 18:28 UTC 2006 |
If a person dies that someone didn't know was still alive, did she really?
|
tod
|
|
response 104 of 253:
|
Jan 31 18:36 UTC 2006 |
She stroked out like back in August. Was anybody really keeping tabs?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 105 of 253:
|
Jan 31 19:28 UTC 2006 |
Probably, many people.
|
furs
|
|
response 106 of 253:
|
Feb 1 02:17 UTC 2006 |
re 103: only if a tree falls.
|
remmers
|
|
response 107 of 253:
|
Feb 2 12:01 UTC 2006 |
I wish to announce that as of January 26, 2006, Western Union has closed
its telegraph service. No more telegrams.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/060131_western_union.html
|
nharmon
|
|
response 108 of 253:
|
Feb 2 12:59 UTC 2006 |
I wonder what Western Union's telegraph service consisted of on January
25th. Perhaps when you sent a telegram, the clerk took your message, and
then e-mailed it to another location, where they would print the message
and deliver.
|
keesan
|
|
response 109 of 253:
|
Feb 2 15:27 UTC 2006 |
I thought they called and phoned the message to you.
In 1985 FedEX used to have a super-fast option in which they faxed material
to the local office then delivered it to you. They eliminated that. zip
mail?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 110 of 253:
|
Feb 2 16:02 UTC 2006 |
What is available now for a person to send a written message
person-to-person within a couple of hours, when neither the sender or
recipient have any fax or computer access? Overnight FedEx isn't as fast
as was a telegram. Or is it just that the demand for that has become so
small that such a service is not sustainable?
There is a radio amateur message service that is still in operation, which
uses a format like telegrams, but public access to that is very difficult
except in emergency situations where amateurs have been enlisted to help.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 111 of 253:
|
Feb 2 16:04 UTC 2006 |
Fax and computer access is hard not to have access to with public
libraries (computer access) and kinkos (fax access).
|
jep
|
|
response 112 of 253:
|
Feb 2 16:06 UTC 2006 |
An article I saw said that Western Union delivered 20,000 telegrams at
$10 each last year. That's not much business for a company serving the
entire nation.
|