According to Sandcastle's posts the mice in Iraq have formed an extensive network built to frustrate the American forces.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/12/30/1072546533143.html
This article proves that they are working with huge rats in Israel.
It is obvious from the reports that once they subdue the American and Israelite forces they will take over the rest of the Arab world.
Once they find a land bridge to Africa, and even North America, the only safe place will be Australia.
cube
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Flu
I have just wasted close to three days of my life not moving, not thinking, and not eating too much, thanks to the bend-you-over-and-squel-like-a-pig-flu.
A detailed outline of how i was striken.
Hopefully this will give you insight on how to avoid the same fate as me.
Friday
8 AM
I feel fine for a friday
11 Am
I feel noticably worse than i did when i woke, and i realized that i was getting sick.
I should have sought emergencay treatment at this point in time.
They have a durg called amantadine (a-MAN-ta-deen), which it is commonly used to prevent or treat the flu. It may also be used to treat symptoms of parkinson's disease. Had i known that his drug existed, i would have become very good friends with a pharamist and would always have these little babies lying around. But oh well.
4:30 pm
We got off of work a little early, and i went home to play video games as usual. I quite playing at 10 and i was running chills by this time.
10:00 pm
stop playing video games because i felt like crap. Although normally i would have3 to 4 more good hours in me.
...
Some point in the night i decide to take my temperature or it could have been early the next morning.
It was hanging around 102.9.
This was the highest that my temp got that i remember, because i started taking durgs to bring it down.
I really don't remember much detail, but i learned that if you take two medacations and stagger them you have better results with you fever. Also, just going to sleep might seem like a good idea, but someone has to take your temp so that you want die. I have not come up with a good solutiion for that yet.
Sunday
1:pm
i decide that i am hungry enough and that food in my apartment will not sastify me anymore so i go buy a large sandwich from a sandwich place near me.
I shower and move very slowing until i an dressed
3:00
I come back and start to eat, the guys at the place must have thought that i was a jerk. I just kinda stared and gave half mumbled answers.
Monday
10:00
I decide that i must go see a doctor or that i will die.
1:00
go to doctor's office get powerful mind numbing drugs. Feel good a bout life again, although i get winded walking up the stairs to my apartment.
2:00
move to floor because the couch and the bed are conspiring against me. It is obvious they are the only ones who gain by me being sick.
cube
and remember Amantadine is the drug you want. Ask for it by name.
Note: if you are pregant it make you kids look like alf from the show alf
A detailed outline of how i was striken.
Hopefully this will give you insight on how to avoid the same fate as me.
Friday
8 AM
I feel fine for a friday
11 Am
I feel noticably worse than i did when i woke, and i realized that i was getting sick.
I should have sought emergencay treatment at this point in time.
They have a durg called amantadine (a-MAN-ta-deen), which it is commonly used to prevent or treat the flu. It may also be used to treat symptoms of parkinson's disease. Had i known that his drug existed, i would have become very good friends with a pharamist and would always have these little babies lying around. But oh well.
4:30 pm
We got off of work a little early, and i went home to play video games as usual. I quite playing at 10 and i was running chills by this time.
10:00 pm
stop playing video games because i felt like crap. Although normally i would have3 to 4 more good hours in me.
...
Some point in the night i decide to take my temperature or it could have been early the next morning.
It was hanging around 102.9.
This was the highest that my temp got that i remember, because i started taking durgs to bring it down.
I really don't remember much detail, but i learned that if you take two medacations and stagger them you have better results with you fever. Also, just going to sleep might seem like a good idea, but someone has to take your temp so that you want die. I have not come up with a good solutiion for that yet.
Sunday
1:pm
i decide that i am hungry enough and that food in my apartment will not sastify me anymore so i go buy a large sandwich from a sandwich place near me.
I shower and move very slowing until i an dressed
3:00
I come back and start to eat, the guys at the place must have thought that i was a jerk. I just kinda stared and gave half mumbled answers.
Monday
10:00
I decide that i must go see a doctor or that i will die.
1:00
go to doctor's office get powerful mind numbing drugs. Feel good a bout life again, although i get winded walking up the stairs to my apartment.
2:00
move to floor because the couch and the bed are conspiring against me. It is obvious they are the only ones who gain by me being sick.
cube
and remember Amantadine is the drug you want. Ask for it by name.
Note: if you are pregant it make you kids look like alf from the show alf
Monday, December 22, 2003
First Protests then Suicide bombs
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4028169
Next thing you know they will be bombing churches.
cube
Next thing you know they will be bombing churches.
cube
Short thought
More about Libya
read this article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-21-analysts-libya-tactics_x.htm
They are saying that Bush's methods are not working. And that the truning of Libya to the good side started before the Iraq war.
check out this timeline of the Iraq war.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908792.html
This article tells you when they contacted Britain
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/21/MNG8H3RVSF1.DTL
Note the last article is from the San Francisco Chronicle
read this article
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-21-analysts-libya-tactics_x.htm
They are saying that Bush's methods are not working. And that the truning of Libya to the good side started before the Iraq war.
check out this timeline of the Iraq war.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908792.html
This article tells you when they contacted Britain
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/21/MNG8H3RVSF1.DTL
Note the last article is from the San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, December 20, 2003
This is interesting
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031219-071205-9611r
Libya is giving up it's WMD's says bush.
What is wrong with this statement. I did not know they have equipment to enrich nuclear mateial. I know they had the third worlds largest chemical plant. But Chemical and biological is far different from trying to make a nuke.
Right now all the information is coming form the US and the UN has not even got news of it yet at all.
Of course, I think this is great.
I mean not one shot was fried. They are finally seeing we could come in there and take them out if we find out what they are doing. And they also realized they were in the much the same position as Iraq, no one would really care if we took them over.
I bet that if we had not taken over Iraq they would not have been so "open".
Speak softly and carry a big stick. It seemed to work well with Libya.
cube
Libya is giving up it's WMD's says bush.
What is wrong with this statement. I did not know they have equipment to enrich nuclear mateial. I know they had the third worlds largest chemical plant. But Chemical and biological is far different from trying to make a nuke.
Right now all the information is coming form the US and the UN has not even got news of it yet at all.
Of course, I think this is great.
I mean not one shot was fried. They are finally seeing we could come in there and take them out if we find out what they are doing. And they also realized they were in the much the same position as Iraq, no one would really care if we took them over.
I bet that if we had not taken over Iraq they would not have been so "open".
Speak softly and carry a big stick. It seemed to work well with Libya.
cube
about freaking time
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/12/19/japan.missiles/index.html
Assume for the purpose of this argument that missile defense is viable and within the current reach of technology.
What the heck took so long for them to decide on this, I mean what are the bad points of have a massive missile defense capability and a massive second-strike capability.
The two combined make it where you just don't want to screw with us, and if you do screw with us, we will screw you up more.
In the ole cold war days of yore a massive second-strike capability assured destruction for both. This operated on the principle that the major players involved did not want to be destroyed in the first place. Given countries with leader like Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei who is the apparent mouthpiece of God, and the crazy North Korean leader. The premise that countries want attack because they don't want their people to be destroyed comes into serious question.
Once you have an outstanding missile defense system (An ideal one would be capable of sensing and responding quickly to threats all over the world. That is why we need Japan's help to position radar stations in a lot of random places.), you would have an excellent offense and a great, but widely untested defense system.
The enemy would have a few options if they were to attack America.
They could build up a truly massive missiles system that once used would allow a few missiles to sneak by.
This has a few problems.
We would know what the enemy was trying to do (the amount of missiles it would take would be tremendous, if we did the system correctly). This method would be very expensive, because you would have to assume that any of the missiles fired have the ability to get though. All of the fired missiles would need to be equal to promise maximum destructive power, unless you were able to find a hole in the defensive net through intelligence or strategic forethought.
Also something to consider with the above point would be the quality of missiles. One thing that would hurt there chances of getting missiles though is that we are several years ahead of most countries, as far as missiles technology is concerned. This would hurt their chances of getting any though.
Choosing such a path would seriously hurt the nation in question in the realm of international relations. Well, it would hurt that nation with other nations who did not have a defensive net of protection. We would not care. We would only point it out to the world as an example of what we are protecting our selves from.
The country could attack with a few missiles that have defensive measures (this just will make us develop defensive measures against defensive measures, which very few countries could keep pace with the US in the area of technological innovation).
Or the county could attack with one bomb smuggled in onto American soil. Our fabulous defensive net of protection will not help us out there.
Now there is the issue of terrorist organizations, they would most likely attack using the last method mentioned. So we still need to investigate further measures for protecting American soil. But the missile defense is a good broad start, and would limit the methods of attacking American soil to actually being on American soil. Which I think America should use their agents in the fields (the little old ladies and gun toting militants are a good start, then we can work on recruiting the every day American to just call 911 if they see a big bomb) for surveillance activates that would be necessary to catch such attacks.
Also, a defensive net would allow us to keep our status as top dog of the world. The missile defense could be used in first strike situations where we just don't want to be attacked when we get done killing a country.
Which the world has been fairly stable for the last ten to 13 years, America has not taken over to many countries (at least any of the ones anyone cares about). So I think we will be safe for the next 10 to 15 years also, from any major world wars. (Note the Defense shield would shut china up, and I know we would all like that. But also not that China is stubborn as a mule and would most likely just build up their weapons or try to build a defense shield of there own. Which they might be able to do it, if we sold them the technology for it.)
Cube
Assume for the purpose of this argument that missile defense is viable and within the current reach of technology.
What the heck took so long for them to decide on this, I mean what are the bad points of have a massive missile defense capability and a massive second-strike capability.
The two combined make it where you just don't want to screw with us, and if you do screw with us, we will screw you up more.
In the ole cold war days of yore a massive second-strike capability assured destruction for both. This operated on the principle that the major players involved did not want to be destroyed in the first place. Given countries with leader like Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei who is the apparent mouthpiece of God, and the crazy North Korean leader. The premise that countries want attack because they don't want their people to be destroyed comes into serious question.
Once you have an outstanding missile defense system (An ideal one would be capable of sensing and responding quickly to threats all over the world. That is why we need Japan's help to position radar stations in a lot of random places.), you would have an excellent offense and a great, but widely untested defense system.
The enemy would have a few options if they were to attack America.
They could build up a truly massive missiles system that once used would allow a few missiles to sneak by.
This has a few problems.
We would know what the enemy was trying to do (the amount of missiles it would take would be tremendous, if we did the system correctly). This method would be very expensive, because you would have to assume that any of the missiles fired have the ability to get though. All of the fired missiles would need to be equal to promise maximum destructive power, unless you were able to find a hole in the defensive net through intelligence or strategic forethought.
Also something to consider with the above point would be the quality of missiles. One thing that would hurt there chances of getting missiles though is that we are several years ahead of most countries, as far as missiles technology is concerned. This would hurt their chances of getting any though.
Choosing such a path would seriously hurt the nation in question in the realm of international relations. Well, it would hurt that nation with other nations who did not have a defensive net of protection. We would not care. We would only point it out to the world as an example of what we are protecting our selves from.
The country could attack with a few missiles that have defensive measures (this just will make us develop defensive measures against defensive measures, which very few countries could keep pace with the US in the area of technological innovation).
Or the county could attack with one bomb smuggled in onto American soil. Our fabulous defensive net of protection will not help us out there.
Now there is the issue of terrorist organizations, they would most likely attack using the last method mentioned. So we still need to investigate further measures for protecting American soil. But the missile defense is a good broad start, and would limit the methods of attacking American soil to actually being on American soil. Which I think America should use their agents in the fields (the little old ladies and gun toting militants are a good start, then we can work on recruiting the every day American to just call 911 if they see a big bomb) for surveillance activates that would be necessary to catch such attacks.
Also, a defensive net would allow us to keep our status as top dog of the world. The missile defense could be used in first strike situations where we just don't want to be attacked when we get done killing a country.
Which the world has been fairly stable for the last ten to 13 years, America has not taken over to many countries (at least any of the ones anyone cares about). So I think we will be safe for the next 10 to 15 years also, from any major world wars. (Note the Defense shield would shut china up, and I know we would all like that. But also not that China is stubborn as a mule and would most likely just build up their weapons or try to build a defense shield of there own. Which they might be able to do it, if we sold them the technology for it.)
Cube
Friday, December 19, 2003
France
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=424981§ion=news
Seeing France's continual commitment to banning religious symbols in schools is interesting.
I am curious to see what would happen if they pass the ban.
Could it piss off the right Muslims just enough so that they would get a nice little suicide bomb as a present?
I would say that situation is a possibility.
Especially given this story.
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1567753
It appears that although al-Qaida cell organization appears to offer many benefits, it also has some drawbacks.
One being, cells have the ability to harm the overall organization by not seeing the big picture, and the daddy cell cannot do anything about it. I think this could happen in France (although it is not very likely).
For something like that to happen in France you would need a cell to be fairly radical, not very bright, and bad at following orders.
If they attacked Turkey, they would attack other countries. Raise you hands if you think France is more likely to be attacked by radical Muslims after they pass the ban.
cube
Seeing France's continual commitment to banning religious symbols in schools is interesting.
I am curious to see what would happen if they pass the ban.
Could it piss off the right Muslims just enough so that they would get a nice little suicide bomb as a present?
I would say that situation is a possibility.
Especially given this story.
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1567753
It appears that although al-Qaida cell organization appears to offer many benefits, it also has some drawbacks.
One being, cells have the ability to harm the overall organization by not seeing the big picture, and the daddy cell cannot do anything about it. I think this could happen in France (although it is not very likely).
For something like that to happen in France you would need a cell to be fairly radical, not very bright, and bad at following orders.
If they attacked Turkey, they would attack other countries. Raise you hands if you think France is more likely to be attacked by radical Muslims after they pass the ban.
cube
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Short thought
If France and Russia were morally opposed to the war why don't they keep their contractors from bidding on contracts that have to do with the rebuilding (which the need to rebuild,cause to rebuild, and freedom to rebuild is because of the Iraq war).
I have not heard them putting their pocketbooks where morals are, and they probably want.
Sigh...It looks like America is going to have to do their job for them once more.
cube
I have not heard them putting their pocketbooks where morals are, and they probably want.
Sigh...It looks like America is going to have to do their job for them once more.
cube
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
The Death penalty and Some good thoughts
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8184379%255E2703,00.html
The UN, Britain, and a long list of other countries don't support the death penalty.
It is cases like this that make me support the death penalty.
When you have a person this evil, manipulative, and hateful (note: I could be talking about Timothy McVeigh, John Allen Muhammad, or Saddam), there is no good recourse but to remove them from the earth.
I wonder it Europe had Hitler after WW2 today, would the kill him?
They probably would not. They would probably exile him to some island somewhere, allowing him to consolidate his power base for the next attack.
Morons they have done that already.
But this time there are not conventional armies involved; all it takes is one missile to hurt you bad.
I can see not allowing wholesale use of the death penalty (although I am not against it), but special cases arise that need to be handled...well.... like..... special cases.
Here are the good thoughts
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2003/12/16/288383.html
cube
The UN, Britain, and a long list of other countries don't support the death penalty.
It is cases like this that make me support the death penalty.
When you have a person this evil, manipulative, and hateful (note: I could be talking about Timothy McVeigh, John Allen Muhammad, or Saddam), there is no good recourse but to remove them from the earth.
I wonder it Europe had Hitler after WW2 today, would the kill him?
They probably would not. They would probably exile him to some island somewhere, allowing him to consolidate his power base for the next attack.
Morons they have done that already.
But this time there are not conventional armies involved; all it takes is one missile to hurt you bad.
I can see not allowing wholesale use of the death penalty (although I am not against it), but special cases arise that need to be handled...well.... like..... special cases.
Here are the good thoughts
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2003/12/16/288383.html
cube
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
I have looked everywhere...
To find an article worth posting and talking about. I have read a lot about the capture of Saddam. I started to read about the capture, but it got old in thrity mins.
But i found this beauty later on today.
http://www.ramallahonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1719
In the article he seems to support Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong's, which together managed to kill about half as many people that died in WW2. And these two guys were not even fighting each other, they were just trying to rule their countries.
check these links
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/stalin/
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mao.html
A qoute from the above article
Whether one liked Saddam Hussein or not, he was the legitimate President of a great Arab nation, and his humiliation was the humiliation of all Arabs.
I bet the ones who died are real humiliated.
and Just to finish it off
But Chivalry and Honour, so dear to an Arab heart, are not American virtues: the US dared to attack Iraq only after ten years of UN sanctions disarmed it.
It will take a little while longer to refute this remark, but just to give you an idea of why we took so long take over iraq.
Read this article.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
The poster of the article wants you to relate the present bush adminstration to the past one which did not take over Saddam. And make it seem like GWB is the evil dude.
The comments that Bush himself made, do sound a lot like today's situation, until you get to this part
As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.
...and ...
The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
In short, the main reasons why we did not finish the job were unsuccessful, we did not win broad international support or make the world any safer. So 12 years later after the Gulf war we are trying somthing different. I am very intrested to see what happens.
cube
But i found this beauty later on today.
http://www.ramallahonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1719
In the article he seems to support Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong's, which together managed to kill about half as many people that died in WW2. And these two guys were not even fighting each other, they were just trying to rule their countries.
check these links
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/stalin/
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/mao.html
A qoute from the above article
Whether one liked Saddam Hussein or not, he was the legitimate President of a great Arab nation, and his humiliation was the humiliation of all Arabs.
I bet the ones who died are real humiliated.
and Just to finish it off
But Chivalry and Honour, so dear to an Arab heart, are not American virtues: the US dared to attack Iraq only after ten years of UN sanctions disarmed it.
It will take a little while longer to refute this remark, but just to give you an idea of why we took so long take over iraq.
Read this article.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
The poster of the article wants you to relate the present bush adminstration to the past one which did not take over Saddam. And make it seem like GWB is the evil dude.
The comments that Bush himself made, do sound a lot like today's situation, until you get to this part
As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.
...and ...
The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
In short, the main reasons why we did not finish the job were unsuccessful, we did not win broad international support or make the world any safer. So 12 years later after the Gulf war we are trying somthing different. I am very intrested to see what happens.
cube
Monday, December 15, 2003
sites to vist
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_iraqataglance_archive.html#107141073769746960
lots of comments on this page
and
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
now back to everquest
lots of comments on this page
and
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
now back to everquest
Wow
Well buy now you have heard about Saddam being captured.
A few comments.
I think that this puts Bush in a very strong position going into the 2004 election. Now he can take the criticism he has gotten and show certain results.
For example.
The economy was bad, but you gave me and my administration time and we fixed it.
You let me attack Iraq and the armed forces and I eventually got the leader of that country.
Other future possibilities are
You gave me time and I captured Bin Ladin.
You gave me time and I have lessened troops and handed over Iraq back to the Iraq people.
If you give me time, I will do so much more.
I mean the only ways you can really critique Bush is buy saying that he could have done it better if he had done it this way.
But unfortunately, most people don't care how you do something as long as when you say that you are going to do something you actually get results.
To argue about the very high level methods, when most don't know the details or the issues involved is fairly useless.
This is America where results matter, so Bush has got quite a score card and more experience than any other opponent. If he can get few more points knocked out he will have 2004 won easily.
cube
Give me time, I am working on it. Is really all he has to say
A few comments.
I think that this puts Bush in a very strong position going into the 2004 election. Now he can take the criticism he has gotten and show certain results.
For example.
The economy was bad, but you gave me and my administration time and we fixed it.
You let me attack Iraq and the armed forces and I eventually got the leader of that country.
Other future possibilities are
You gave me time and I captured Bin Ladin.
You gave me time and I have lessened troops and handed over Iraq back to the Iraq people.
If you give me time, I will do so much more.
I mean the only ways you can really critique Bush is buy saying that he could have done it better if he had done it this way.
But unfortunately, most people don't care how you do something as long as when you say that you are going to do something you actually get results.
To argue about the very high level methods, when most don't know the details or the issues involved is fairly useless.
This is America where results matter, so Bush has got quite a score card and more experience than any other opponent. If he can get few more points knocked out he will have 2004 won easily.
cube
Give me time, I am working on it. Is really all he has to say
Saturday, December 13, 2003
It is finally here
I have been getting hundreds of calls about this, and even into the thousands of emails from my readers in the blogsphere.
But it is finally here....all of the Democrats judiciary memo's that were leaked to the press.
Don't worry it is not that bad, the Democrats just look like tools.
http://fairjudiciary.campsol.com/cfj_contents/press/collusionmemos.shtml
Now for the fair and balanced part. I would love to see the memos from the other side during the Clinton years.
cube
But it is finally here....all of the Democrats judiciary memo's that were leaked to the press.
Don't worry it is not that bad, the Democrats just look like tools.
http://fairjudiciary.campsol.com/cfj_contents/press/collusionmemos.shtml
Now for the fair and balanced part. I would love to see the memos from the other side during the Clinton years.
cube
Friday, December 12, 2003
The UN is at it again
http://www.forbes.com/2003/12/08/cx_da_1208topnews.html
Well this is a quote from the above article.
The WSIS does not ignore details particular to the Internet. Paragraph 34 deals with spam and cyber-security indicating they should be dealt with at "at appropriate national and international levels." As for pedophilia and child pornography, those abuses should be prevented by "all actors in the Information Society," who also must tackle "acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, [defamation of religions] and related intolerance, hatred, violence--and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings."
I agree that many of the things that the WSIS wishes to prevent should be eradicated from the earth. I am really concerned with a few statements such as "must tackle "acts... , xenophobia, [defamation of religions] and related intolerance"".
Hmm...it sounds like the UN is telling me what to think.
I feel that if I want to be intolerant of a religion, of any few religions, or all religions, I should be able to do that. I can write or say whatever I want about religion (via newspapers, internet). I can even preach my particular brand of soul saving rhetoric and decry any that would be a threat to my religion. But I cannot make people believe what I want them to believe by force, blow others up (although you should have the right to blow yourself up as long as it does not infringe in the rights of others to not get blown up), or harass them continually mentally or physically.
Racism is bad, but if a person wishes to spread that particular mind filth around what can you do about it. As soon as the racist becomes a racist with a gun and political agenda, they should be shot by the race they hate (just to add a bit of irony to life).
I was wondering if the UN would also shut down sites that say the UN sucks.
For more information on how to protect you freedom of the Internet please vist.
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=whatis
cube
Well this is a quote from the above article.
The WSIS does not ignore details particular to the Internet. Paragraph 34 deals with spam and cyber-security indicating they should be dealt with at "at appropriate national and international levels." As for pedophilia and child pornography, those abuses should be prevented by "all actors in the Information Society," who also must tackle "acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, [defamation of religions] and related intolerance, hatred, violence--and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings."
I agree that many of the things that the WSIS wishes to prevent should be eradicated from the earth. I am really concerned with a few statements such as "must tackle "acts... , xenophobia, [defamation of religions] and related intolerance"".
Hmm...it sounds like the UN is telling me what to think.
I feel that if I want to be intolerant of a religion, of any few religions, or all religions, I should be able to do that. I can write or say whatever I want about religion (via newspapers, internet). I can even preach my particular brand of soul saving rhetoric and decry any that would be a threat to my religion. But I cannot make people believe what I want them to believe by force, blow others up (although you should have the right to blow yourself up as long as it does not infringe in the rights of others to not get blown up), or harass them continually mentally or physically.
Racism is bad, but if a person wishes to spread that particular mind filth around what can you do about it. As soon as the racist becomes a racist with a gun and political agenda, they should be shot by the race they hate (just to add a bit of irony to life).
I was wondering if the UN would also shut down sites that say the UN sucks.
For more information on how to protect you freedom of the Internet please vist.
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=whatis
cube
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Do the dew and Join the revolution
http://www.kazaa.com/revolution/index_revolution.htm
This is one of the better pieces of propaganda that i have seen recently. I like how when you scan down the page it implies that record companies are evil, and then shows you links to help fight the man. It follows the Starship Troopers model of propaganda really well.
Show you information that makes you feel a certain way, then offer the chance to learn more by very opportune links. This then gives you the chance to turn the way you fell into action right then and there.
I don’t know about you but I always wanted to learn more when they asked if I wanted to learn more in Starship Troopers.
cube
This is one of the better pieces of propaganda that i have seen recently. I like how when you scan down the page it implies that record companies are evil, and then shows you links to help fight the man. It follows the Starship Troopers model of propaganda really well.
Show you information that makes you feel a certain way, then offer the chance to learn more by very opportune links. This then gives you the chance to turn the way you fell into action right then and there.
I don’t know about you but I always wanted to learn more when they asked if I wanted to learn more in Starship Troopers.
cube
Saturday, December 06, 2003
Relationships
Just some strange connections that i have thought of in the shower.
America is the richest country in the world.
On average americans work more hours per week than any other industirled country, maybe there is a conecttion here.
Also, anthor area where there may be a connection is between poor people and TV.
If you are more likley to be overweight when watching large amounts of tv, and you are more likley to be overweight if you are poor. Could it be the TV which makes you poor and obese?
Or do you watch TV because you are poor and obese?
cube
America is the richest country in the world.
On average americans work more hours per week than any other industirled country, maybe there is a conecttion here.
Also, anthor area where there may be a connection is between poor people and TV.
If you are more likley to be overweight when watching large amounts of tv, and you are more likley to be overweight if you are poor. Could it be the TV which makes you poor and obese?
Or do you watch TV because you are poor and obese?
cube
Friday, December 05, 2003
Small furry masters of the universe
Maybe the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was right. Maybe humans are the third most evolved lifeform on Earth. While I haven't had much problem with dolphins of late, the mice seem to be conspiring. They attack en masse, expertly using stealth and camouflage to their advantage. Their cover story is food gathering, but they carefully pilfer through all unsecured items. They are taking notes and biding their time for the Big Attack. Their intelligence system surpasses anything Lenin ever dreamed of. And they are becoming freakishly strong. I submit for evidence the previously mentioned story of the mouse that defeated a scorpion and hornet. Also, a friend of mine has found proof of their super strength. He sets mouse traps with peanut butter and cheez whiz. He woke up one morning to find a trap sprung, mouse entangled. He went to the latrine and then came back to dispose of the diseased vermin. He was shocked to find that the mouse had left with the trap in tow! If we don't quit dismissing the rodent problem and face the situation, this entire war could be lost. The heathen rodents are obviously loyal to Saddam and infiltrate our camps with impunity. I implore anyone reading this to take action. You may be the next victim!
Help the great society is dying
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104763,00.html
I can't believe this, the republicans want to allow me to put money I would normally give to the government into the stock market for long term growth. They want me to actually own the money and take personal responsibility for the cash that I make, instead of just giving the money to the government and watching them waste it and/or use it to help others.
There is one catch: I will have to work to produce the cash...
Additionally, one thing the republicans have failed to point out is that by the stock market has been the best investment over the last 100 years. They also failed to point out that if I were to invest the cash instead of putting it into social security, I would have had a better return on investment.....Wait a minute
Hey, maybe the slow removal of the great society is a good thing.
cube
I can't believe this, the republicans want to allow me to put money I would normally give to the government into the stock market for long term growth. They want me to actually own the money and take personal responsibility for the cash that I make, instead of just giving the money to the government and watching them waste it and/or use it to help others.
There is one catch: I will have to work to produce the cash...
Additionally, one thing the republicans have failed to point out is that by the stock market has been the best investment over the last 100 years. They also failed to point out that if I were to invest the cash instead of putting it into social security, I would have had a better return on investment.....Wait a minute
Hey, maybe the slow removal of the great society is a good thing.
cube
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Exposing lies
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/02/MNGLP3E5LF1.DTL
I quote:
In a house on the outskirts of Samarra, Abir Mohammed Al-Khayat, 28, said a rocket hit the minibus in which she and several others had commuted from their jobs at a local pharmaceuticals factory. "There were about 20 of us, men and women," she said, cradling her arm, injured by shrapnel, in a sling.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/01/cnna.jones/
I quote:
JONES: [M]y understanding is it was only supposed to take us about 30 minutes in the actual Iraqi currency exchange, to drop off the money. And I estimated that about an hour and a half, two hours, is what I would just estimate. The firepower that the U.S. had, as far as we had some tanks out there. We had some Bradleys. I had an MP squad with me and I had another one at the other bank. We were using 40-millimeter machine guns. We were also using our regular M-4 rifles and 249 SAWs plus some 50-caliber machine guns.
If you need to know what Saws are check out the post below that sandcastle was kinda enough to make.
I read up on the Bradley fighting vehcies. These vechiles do have high explosive rounds, but a high explosive round is a lot different from a rocket. The high expliovise rounds would have the same effect as a rpg it seems, but you would not see them coming, only hear them. The high explosive rounds might have been used by the americans in this tatactial situtaion. Then again, given the close quaters they may not have been used. The bradlies are also outfitted with the stinger missle system, which is used to engage "low-altitude jet, propeller-driven and helicopter aircraft", and would have seemed out of place in this tactial situation.
In short, I would love to see an inventory of the bradlies before and after the battle to decide exactly what the woman saw.
Although, i admit that a lot could have been lost in the translation (rocket = mortor etc.). If you take the woman literaly, the americans did not use rockets, and she was hit by her own contrymen's RPGs.
Also a friend pointed this out to me
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104437,00.html
"Luckily we evacuated the children five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a 40-year-old guard at the kindergarten. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with tank shells?"
My friend asked, "Why did you evacuate the School?"
Possible answers: The insurgents told them to evacuate, or the insurgents took over part of the school and they decided to evacute the rest of the school.
Note: The guard used the words "tank shells" instead of rockets or motors, both of which would have been used by the insurgents.
cube
I quote:
In a house on the outskirts of Samarra, Abir Mohammed Al-Khayat, 28, said a rocket hit the minibus in which she and several others had commuted from their jobs at a local pharmaceuticals factory. "There were about 20 of us, men and women," she said, cradling her arm, injured by shrapnel, in a sling.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/01/cnna.jones/
I quote:
JONES: [M]y understanding is it was only supposed to take us about 30 minutes in the actual Iraqi currency exchange, to drop off the money. And I estimated that about an hour and a half, two hours, is what I would just estimate. The firepower that the U.S. had, as far as we had some tanks out there. We had some Bradleys. I had an MP squad with me and I had another one at the other bank. We were using 40-millimeter machine guns. We were also using our regular M-4 rifles and 249 SAWs plus some 50-caliber machine guns.
If you need to know what Saws are check out the post below that sandcastle was kinda enough to make.
I read up on the Bradley fighting vehcies. These vechiles do have high explosive rounds, but a high explosive round is a lot different from a rocket. The high expliovise rounds would have the same effect as a rpg it seems, but you would not see them coming, only hear them. The high explosive rounds might have been used by the americans in this tatactial situtaion. Then again, given the close quaters they may not have been used. The bradlies are also outfitted with the stinger missle system, which is used to engage "low-altitude jet, propeller-driven and helicopter aircraft", and would have seemed out of place in this tactial situation.
In short, I would love to see an inventory of the bradlies before and after the battle to decide exactly what the woman saw.
Although, i admit that a lot could have been lost in the translation (rocket = mortor etc.). If you take the woman literaly, the americans did not use rockets, and she was hit by her own contrymen's RPGs.
Also a friend pointed this out to me
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104437,00.html
"Luckily we evacuated the children five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a 40-year-old guard at the kindergarten. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with tank shells?"
My friend asked, "Why did you evacuate the School?"
Possible answers: The insurgents told them to evacuate, or the insurgents took over part of the school and they decided to evacute the rest of the school.
Note: The guard used the words "tank shells" instead of rockets or motors, both of which would have been used by the insurgents.
cube
Military gear
The "249 SAWS" are M-249 Squad Automatic Weapons. It is a fully automatic, belt fed, gas powered rifle that fires a 7.62mm round. It can be fired from the hip or shoulder and also includes a bipod for stationary firing. Generally every squad sized element (generally around ten troops or so) contains at least one SAW. The Bradley is a tank that is lighter than the Abrams. I am not really familiar with tanks, but you can check them out at globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm ). The civilian damage is regrettable, but in an ambush situation there will always be some stray fire. The fact that the ambush took place in a city only compounds that.
In other Iraqi news, the Bug Wars took place on the first of December. Which would win; a field mouse, a large hornet, or a small scorpion if all three were placed in an empty 1.5 liter water bottle? Suprisingly, it was the mouse. After enduring multiple stings, the mouse chewed and clawed the scorpion and hornet to death. I don't know the exact species of scorpion, but it was about 3 inches long without the tail and green. The hornet was the same size and red. The mouse was approximately 4 inches long without tail. It was brown on top and white on bottom. The mouse received a second chance at freedom and a substantial cash prize which it ungraciously abandoned.
In other Iraqi news, the Bug Wars took place on the first of December. Which would win; a field mouse, a large hornet, or a small scorpion if all three were placed in an empty 1.5 liter water bottle? Suprisingly, it was the mouse. After enduring multiple stings, the mouse chewed and clawed the scorpion and hornet to death. I don't know the exact species of scorpion, but it was about 3 inches long without the tail and green. The hornet was the same size and red. The mouse was approximately 4 inches long without tail. It was brown on top and white on bottom. The mouse received a second chance at freedom and a substantial cash prize which it ungraciously abandoned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)