so if Hamas tries to limit civilian casualties ie to their sole declared enemies, Israel, and don’t attack elsewhere, then it’s also acceptable casualties.
Kuwait comes to mind. In less than ten years, Arabs in that state went from naming their kids George Bush to voting for theocrats in their legislature and even occasionally attacking U.S. soldiers. By any measure, the situation in Iraq is more complex than Kuwait, and different groups of Iraqis are affected in unequal ways by U.S. control of their country.
Iraq is a multi-ethnic state with one ethnicity – the Sunnis – most likely to be out of power soon for the first time in the Iraq’s modern history. The Sunnis represent a quarter to a third of the Iraqi population. It’s natural that this segment of the population is, at best, ambivalent about U.S. control of their country and the setting up of a democracy. Democracy can probably mean only one thing in Iraq: Shi’ites in control.
so if Hamas tries to limit civilian casualties ie to their sole declared enemies, Israel, and don’t attack elsewhere, then it’s also acceptable casualties.[/quote]
No, that’s not it. Try again.
so if Hamas tries to limit civilian casualties ie to their sole declared enemies, Israel, and don’t attack elsewhere, then it’s also acceptable casualties.[/quote]
I never thought I’d ever see “Hamas” and “limit civilian casualties” in the same sentence! Whatever next?
so if Hamas tries to limit civilian casualties ie to their sole declared enemies, Israel, and don’t attack elsewhere, then it’s also acceptable casualties.[/quote]
No, that’s not it. Try again.[/quote]
how predictable. 
I think it’s pretty obvious that the U.S. is operating according to its own agenda–and not anything so lofty as the defense of democracy or human rights (let alone the search for those elusive WMD’s, or a link between Saddam Hussein and “al-Qaeda”).
My personal favorite oil-based theory focused on the possibility that if not for the invasion, Iraq would have announced that it would accept oil payment in euros rather than petrodollars. When other OPEC nations followed suit, this would have led to a U.S. recession, and W. obviously couldn’t have that.
This raises an interesting question–is it legitimate to take military action in defense of one’s economy? To shed blood for money, so to speak? Obviously, the economy is important–a kind of “lifeblood” of a country in its own right.
Besides oil, it is surely relevant that the principal architects of this venture in the U.S. administration are Jewish. (Though un-PC to note this, alas.) Thanks to their influence, it seems that the U.S. can be moved to act on behalf of Israeli interests even where these conflict with U.S. interests. This would include preventing any serious regional rival (Iraq, Iran, or whatever) from arising, by any means necessary.
Democracy in Iraq would be bad for Israel, since the electorate hates them. At the very least, they would like to see it tempered with nondemocratic requirements, as in Western Europe.
Now we are stuck in a pattern of one or two U.S. soldiers, on average, being killed every day. A slow bleed, as in Somalia. Will the U.S. electorate accept this? Will the media deliberately ignore it in favor of some new circus (like the California recall election)? Will some means be found to manipulate the outcome of the next U.S. elections, if they seem to be going against the interests of the power elite? Will civil liberties be scaled back even further?
The U.S. government strikes me as increasingly desperate. I foresee a time when the U.S. too falls apart, like Iraq or the Soviet Union. As for Israel, many people have noted its structural similarity to the crusader kingdoms of Palestine, and it will probably last about the same length of time.
Keep in mind that the poll was taken before the mosque bombing that killed a major Iraqi cleric and a whole bunch of his followers – which was attributed to al Qaeda fighters who had infiltrated Iraq.
And remember (from the AP news reports two days after the bombing) that they CAPTURED several of the terrorists who set off that bomb, and so they KNOW from those guys’ admissions that they are al Qaeda.
The “unfavorable” rating is likely to be much higher now than it was back when the survey was taken.
Oh, yes, the elusive American agenda. What is it this time? World enslavement through globalization? Force-feeding Muslims pork? Making them watch reruns of Porky Pig? What can it be?
Of course! It has to do with oil and economics and cartels – even the oft-neglected Europeans get a starring role with their new currency! That’s so original. Why didn’t I think of that?!
Screaming Jesus goes from the conspiratorial to the contemplative. The conspiracy is obvious to him so he asks, a little plaintively, was it morally right. He tries to keep an open mind by wondering if blood for money is ever right.
But plainly he’s bored with ethical discussions and moves right back to his favoratie topic: conspiracy.
ColdFront was on the edge of his seat wondering when the Jews were going to make an entrance in Screaming Jesus’s drama. He applauds the shouting Messiah’s discretion for waiting until paragraph four before introducing the Jewish bloodsuckers. It’s always good to keep the audience wondering when the main villains will make an appearance in the story.
Hahaha! How easy our young dramatist loses track of his plot. Screaming Jesus moves from the U.S. acting in its own economic interests in Iraq (Oil! Money! Stop the Euro!) to it acting against its own interests in behalf of the craven Shylocks in Israel. But we must keep the story straight, Screaming Messiah. Did the U.S. act in its own interests or in Israel’s interests? Don’t let a large plot hole spoil your wonderful story at this late stage.
Well, then, if it’s bad for Israel, I’m sure those American Jews – damn their hated souls! – will connive to keep democracy out of Iraq.
Too many questions for someone who already has all the answers. Not good, not good. Keep the story focused on Jews, oil, and evil Americans.
The story got off to a great start, but its finale could use some work. You had all the main elements – money, villains, conspiracy, a moral dilemma, a huge nation being led astray for money and/or the Jews (I know, you haven’t figured that part out yet, but keep working on it) – but then you let it get away with such an implausible ending that doesn’t leave much room for a sequel. Sorry to say it needs a rewrite. Keep the Jewish villains, the conspiracy, and the “oil for blood” angle, but lose the overt morality and major downer of an ending.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Beseiged?
http://www.theonion.com/3935/top_story.html
HG[/quote]
It’s besieged.
The joke loses a lot of its force when you misspell the only word in the post.
I heard the Americans were financing the third part of that Australian pig series – Babe in Baghdad. They’re also considering making The Muppets Search for Mohammed (starring Miss Piggy, of course).
[quote=“Cold Front”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Beseiged?
http://www.theonion.com/3935/top_story.html
HG[/quote]
It’s besieged.
The joke loses a lot of its force when you misspell the only word in the post.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. It made it even funnier because I assumed they copied the way Rumsfield spells it.
I heard the Americans were financing the third part of that Australian pig series – Babe in Baghdad. They’re also considering making The Muppets Search for Mohammed (starring Miss Piggy, of course).[/quote]
I can’t wait for the scene when the locals try to stone Farmer Hoggett after they catch him dancing for a sick pig.
Well, I am not surprised but where are all the voices yelling at screaming jesus for his jewish comments? Too busy only protecting the Arabs and Muslims. Again, while I personally couldn’t care a fig for what Screaming Jesus may think of the Jews, why is it that the Jews are not worthy of the same protection that the Muslims and Arabs are when it comes to being sensitive? Just curious.
freddy
One of the rules of comedy: the object of a joke has to be somewhat plausibly connected to what you’re going to laugh at him about.
Some obvious examples might be Clinton and his eating or sex life, Bush and his tendency to misspeak, Gore and his woodenness, Rumsfeld and his tough guy manner.
If Bush is the object of a joke insulting his intelligence, the joke might work because many people perceive Bush to be less than bright. A joke making fun of Clinton’s intelligence probably wouldn’t work.
In HG’s post, the joke should be about Rumsfeld’s aggressive and alienating manner, not his intelligence. Thus the misspelling is nothing more than the verbal equivalent of a guy telling a joke who stutters before delivering the punchline.
One of the rules of comedy: the object of a joke has to be somewhat plausibly connected to what you’re going to laugh at him about.
Some obvious examples might be Clinton and his eating or sex life, Bush and his tendency to misspeak, Gore and his woodenness, Rumsfeld and his tough guy manner.
If Bush is the object of a joke insulting his intelligence, the joke might work because many people perceive Bush to be less than bright. A joke making fun of Clinton’s intelligence probably wouldn’t work.
In HG’s post, the joke should be about Rumsfeld’s aggressive and alienating manner, not his intelligence. Thus the misspelling is nothing more than the verbal equivalent of a guy telling a joke who stutters before delivering the punchline.[/quote]
Cold Front, good stuff. Your explanation of the mechanics of a joke was even funnier than the joke itself!
Fred, I don’t think you’re giving SJ credit for his unique look at the Middle East. Where else can you read about the U.S. invading Iraq for its oil and to do Israel’s bidding?
Hahahaha! It’s a curse. There’s nothing I won’t break down analytically.
You’re right. This really isn’t funny.
And to think that this dweeb was the so-called “Leader of the Free World” for eight years. . . . 
Hahahaha! It’s a curse. There’s nothing I won’t break down analytically.[/quote]
CF, are you a big fan of minesweeper? Maybe some of the people in this
article were your classmates.