Lebanon's Pro-Syrian Gov't Resigns

[Nickdfresh]

Lebanon's pro-Syrian PM resigns
Monday, February 28, 2005 Posted: 12:30 PM EST (1730 GMT)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/28/lebanon.protests/story.lebanon.karami.ap.jpg
Karami said he was resigning to avoid blocking peace.
Image:


BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Lebanon's pro-Syrian prime minister has announced his resignation and that of his government amid protests over the assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri, who criticized Syria's presence in the country.

Following Monday's statement by Prime Minister Omar Karami in a special speech to parliament, a Lebanese opposition figure called for popular protests in Beirut to continue until Syria leaves.

"The battle is long, and this is the first step, this is the battle for freedom, sovereignty and independence," opposition MP Ghattas Khouri told a cheering protest in central Beirut, according to Reuters.

The opposition has raised its rhetoric in recent days, taking its cue from international pressure -- led by the U.S. and France -- to force Syrian troops from Lebanon following Hariri's killing.

Karami, whose speech was broadcast by Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, said he would have won a no-confidence vote scheduled for later in the day, but was resigning to avoid making his government a stumbling block to peace.

"I'm afraid we will have a vacuum in the country," said House Speaker Nabih Berri, who asked for the floor. "I should be allowed to say something." He was not given the floor.

Earlier Monday, tens of thousands of demonstrators defied a ban and poured into Beirut's city center Monday to protest against Syria's military presence in Lebanon.

"We are asking for Syrian withdrawal," said opposition leader Camille Chamoun of the National Liberation Party, which has helped orchestrate numerous protests in recent days.

"The Syrian occupation forces and their security systems have to go back to Syria.

"We don't want anything against the Syrian people," said Chamoun, whose grandfather, also named Camille Chamoun, was president of Lebanon from 1952-58.

"We are not a nation that likes war. We just want everybody to be on his own side."

An estimated 50,000 people gathered Monday in Beirut's Martyr Square despite an order a day earlier by Lebanon's Interior Ministry for military forces to "use all necessary means" to make sure the demonstrations did not take place.

CNN's Brent Sadler described Monday's protests as non-confrontational.

"There is a standoff that is not in any way tense," he reported. "It is a mild-mannered ... standoff. The army and the police ... have ringed off a very large area in downtown Beirut."

The demonstrations have focused on whether Syria played a role in Hariri's death on February 14.

Since then, thousands of demonstrators have peacefully protested Syria's military presence in Lebanon.

"The free world is really helping Lebanon restore its sovereignty," Chamoun said. "I imagine there is quite a bit of pressure on Syria to leave. I hope they leave in a peaceful way."

Chamoun accused the Lebanese government of taking orders from Syria.

"They have taken over our parliament with making bad elections three times consecutively," he said. "They have taken over power in Lebanon. The people in government in this country are their allies and obey unconditionally any orders from Damascus."

The Rest (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/28/lebanon.protests/index.html)

[ODShowtime]

Things sure are moving over there lately. This really is a big day!

Syria is on the ropes!

[ODShowtime]

Looks like ol' Arlen and I are on the same page again:


U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, was not impressed.

"I thought those responses were weak," he told CNN. "When she talks about redeployment, it's an excuse for 'no withdrawal.' We know that Syria has housed the terrorists in Damascus for decades."

He added: "I think Syria is in deep trouble, unless they make big changes, and right away."

[ELVIS]

Lookout Syria!

BOOM !!


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Lookout Syria!

BOOM !!


:elvis:

Shut up hick!

[Viking]

The Big One is going to be when the general Iranian populace strings up the Weird Beards by their necks. I'll break out a bottle of champagne for that one. :killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Viking
The Big One is going to be when the general Iranian populace strings up the Weird Beards by their necks. I'll break out a bottle of champagne for that one. :killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

They already tried a general uprising and sadly it was put down.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Viking
The Big One is going to be when the general Iranian populace strings up the Weird Beards by their necks. I'll break out a bottle of champagne for that one. :killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

That would be quite a treat.

[DrMaddVibe]

All of this because our President dared to keep the UN honest to their word.

The libs bad-mouth him, but history is being written right here and now...The Middle East is clamoring for Freedom, the Dems have talked about it and some have even received Nobel Peace Prizes but their efforts amounted to a whole lot of nothing.

History will be kind to the man from Texas!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
All of this because our President dared to keep the UN honest to their word.

The libs bad-mouth him, but history is being written right here and now...The Middle East is clamoring for Freedom, the Dems have talked about it and some have even received Nobel Peace Prizes but their efforts amounted to a whole lot of nothing.

History will be kind to the man from Texas!

No. This happened because the Syrians assassinated the opposition leader and got caught.

[Warham]

It just proves Bush's foreign policy actually gets things done that have a positive lasting impact, instead of just paying lip service like someone I won't mention.

Iran will be next, and we won't have to bomb or attack them with our troops. Our vocal support for their revolutionaries, the success in Afghanistan and Iraq, now Syria. The Middle East is changing, for the better.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It just proves Bush's foreign policy actually gets things done that have a positive lasting impact, instead of just paying lip service like someone I won't mention.

Getting Americans killed in Iraq?

[Warham]

I guess getting Americans killed in Europe between 1942-45 wasn't worth it either, right?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I guess getting Americans killed in Europe between 1942-45 wasn't worth it either, right?

We were attacked by them, so we didn't have a choice.

[Warham]

So why didn't we send troops to Japan then, Nick?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
So why didn't we send troops to Japan then, Nick?

Click on the Linky (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm) for a history lesson!

[Warham]

Ahhh, the old linky.

Well, I think you'll find that we have had some success in overwhelming the poor fools who were responsible for 9/11 by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but I know you wouldn't want to connect the dots, right?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Ahhh, the old linky.

Well, I think you'll find that we have had some success in overwhelming the poor fools who were responsible for 9/11 by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but I know you wouldn't want to connect the dots, right?

Which ones were from Iraq?

[DrMaddVibe]

"was it over when the Germans attacked pearl harbor?"


"He's on a roll...just let him go!"

[Warham]

Unfortunately, al Queda never sent a notorized list of their roster to US Homeland Security Department, so it'll be a while before we find out all of their Iraqi members. In the meantime, we'll just meet their remaining members in Iraq, when they try to car-bomb our troops.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
"was it over when the Germans attacked pearl harbor?"


"He's on a roll...just let him go!"

You mean, "Was it over when the Chinese bombed Pearl Harbor?"

http://www.bonistalli.it/images/bluto.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Unfortunately, al Queda never sent a notorized list of their roster to US Homeland Security Department, so it'll be a while before we find out all of their Iraqi members. In the meantime, we'll just meet their remaining members in Iraq, when they try to car-bomb our troops.

They were all from Saudi Arabia.

Saddam Hussein was a member of the Pan-Arab Nationalist school of secularist Middle Eastern leaders, like Anwar Sadat and Nassar. His personal heroes were Stalin and Churchill.

He was nonaligned with, and even opposed to Islamic fundamentalist groups. Don't even try that coevolution bullshit. You cannot combine all your enemies into one single ideology and "attack" them in one-fell swoop.

[Warham]

I don't think this administration combined all of our enemies into one idealogy. We attacked Iraq for reasons different from invading Afghanistan.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
In the meantime, we'll just meet their remaining members in Iraq, when they try to car-bomb our troops.

I CAN'T BELIEVE you're still parroting that poop-logic!:eek:

[Warham]

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections

By Richard Miniter Published 09/25/2003

Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.

Mr. Miniter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery) which is now on the New York Times' bestseller list.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Ahhh, the old linky.

Well, I think you'll find that we have had some success in overwhelming the poor fools who were responsible for 9/11 by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but I know you wouldn't want to connect the dots, right?

The recently reported request from Al Qaeda to Zarqawi asking for attacks outside of Iraq and in the U.S. (which I find HIGHLY dubious) would indicate that we actually are significantly impacting Al Qaeda's operational effectiveness. If these reports are true, which I doubt, it would show that Al Qaeda is on the ropes.

I just can't understand how Zarqawi would have the logistics to deliver attacks outside Iraq...

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I CAN'T BELIEVE you're still parroting that poop-logic!:eek:

Then tell me, good sir, who are these men who are driving these cars?

Have a better answer?

Or do you plan to just invade every thread with a non-reply to bump your post count?

:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't think this administration combined all of our enemies into one idealogy. We attacked Iraq for reasons different from invading Afghanistan.

Yes, and every reason has logically fallen to pieces one-by-one.

...WMD's?

...Fighting the terrorists over there? Uh, no Baathist Iraqis were bombing the US.

...Democratizing the Middle East? Perhaps. But why weren't we pushing for democracy earlier in allied states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

But you are not going to crack Iran, and the situation in Iraq may be bleak in the long run. Then again, it may work out great, I don't know.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
The recently reported request from Al Qaeda to Zarqawi asking for attacks outside of Iraq and in the U.S. (which I find HIGHLY dubious) would indicate that we actually are significantly impacting Al Qaeda's operational effectiveness. If these reports are true, which I doubt, it would show that Al Qaeda is on the ropes.

I just can't understand how Zarqawi would have the logistics to deliver attacks outside Iraq...

You find eveything highly dubious...unless it attacks George W. Bush. Then it's the Gospel according to FORD.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, and every reason has logically fallen to pieces one-by-one.

...WMD's?

...Fighting the terrorists over there? Uh, no Baathist Iraqis were bombing the US.

...Democratizing the Middle East? Perhaps. But why weren't we pushing for democracy earlier in allied states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

But you are not going to crack Iran, and the situation in Iraq may be bleak in the long run. Then again, it may work out great, I don't know.

In order to follow your party's line, Nick, I wouldn't be saying it might work out. You need to say it's a total catastrophe. Then you'll be in line like the rest of the liberals.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Then tell me, good sir, who are these men who are driving these cars?

Have a better answer?

Or do you plan to just invade every thread with a non-reply to bump your post count?

:D

Well, I haven't been able to get access to interview any successful suicide bombers. But like I've stated in the past, I believe there's a great deal of difference between the rare and valuable operatives who could conduct 9-11 style operations in the US versus the 'terror footsoldiers' who get recruited to attack troops and blow shit up in Iraq. Of course I actually opened my mind and thought about it...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
In order to follow your party's line, Nick, I wouldn't be saying it might work out. You need to say it's a total catastrophe. Then you'll be in line like the rest of the liberals.

I don't think that is necessarily true.

But it may just as likely turn into civil war. I've already heard the Shiites are getting sick of suicide bombings by Sunnis. I think if Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani dies, we're/they're fucked!

[Warham]

Everybody is too calm on here today.

:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Well, I haven't been able to get access to interview any successful suicide bombers. But like I've stated in the past, I believe there's a great deal of difference between the rare and valuable operatives who could conduct 9-11 style operations in the US versus the 'terror footsoldiers' who get recruited to attack troops and blow shit up in Iraq. Of course I actually opened my mind and thought about it...

Many of those 'terrorist foot-soldiers' have been extorted into driving car bombs through threats to kill their families if they don't kill themselves.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Everybody is too calm on here today.

:D

ah, so you were specifically trying to piss me off eh?

Well guess what, I had my entire system access and 3 years worth of e-mail and contacts deleted today, my 2nd to last day of work. So you're gonna have to try harder than that.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Many of those 'terrorist foot-soldiers' have been extorted into driving car bombs through threats to kill their families if they don't kill themselves.


That and random people also.

But these are all hardened, trained Al Qeada killers in Iraq.
Luckily the didn't make it into the US with the great language and operational security training.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
ah, so you were specifically trying to piss me off eh?

Well guess what, I had my entire system access and 3 years worth of e-mail and contacts deleted today, my 2nd to last day of work. So you're gonna have to try harder than that.

My brother gave his two-week notice at his job, at a subsidiary of Fed Ex (a shitty subsidiary). They told him to clean out his desk, and escorted him out the door after giving him the two extra weeks in his paycheck

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
ah, so you were specifically trying to piss me off eh?

Well guess what, I had my entire system access and 3 years worth of e-mail and contacts deleted today, my 2nd to last day of work. So you're gonna have to try harder than that.

No, I really wasn't trying to piss you off. Not more than usual anyway.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You mean, "Was it over when the Chinese bombed Pearl Harbor?"

http://www.bonistalli.it/images/bluto.jpg

Fuck no!


Get it right!

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My brother gave his two-week notice at his job, at a subsidiary of Fed Ex (a shitty subsidiary). They told him to clean out his desk, and escorted him out the door after giving him the two extra weeks in his paycheck

My last paycheck goes to tuition reimbursement. It's worth it though to get the hell out of here.

I won't have as much free time anymore, so ya'll be missin' my peachy outlook on the world.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
My last paycheck goes to tuition reimbursement. It's worth it though to get the hell out of here.

I won't have as much free time anymore, so ya'll be missin' my peachy outlook on the world.

Not as much free time?

Do you just post from work?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Fuck no!


Get it right!

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!

Dude, I'm pretty sure I'm right. I have it in my DVD player. I'm gonna' find that scene now.

Okay, you are correct sir! He did say Germans, I could of swore he said Chinese (cuntfusing Korea with WWII).

[Warham]

It's kind of funny, all the guys who post from work here. All of my 3,760 posts are from my living room. Hehe

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Do you just post from work?

No, but I post a lot from work. That will change now that I'm taking a job that pays some decent money and expects HARD work. I'm talking 40% travel and shit. But I'll have loot. Interesting change.


Well, enough about me. Doesn't it look like maybe a whole huge part of the whole middle east mess is just Syrian Intelligence messing things up? It's like the need a buffer zone of messed up countries around themselves. That could explain a lot of the Iraq resistance. That and Saddam himself.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
It's kind of funny, all the guys who post from work here. All of my 3,760 posts are from my living room. Hehe

If you saw where I work (worked, hehe) you'd understand. I still get everything done that needs to get done and run the damn place.

[DrMaddVibe]

Perhaps, but if it was up to some here on this board...we'd STILL be talking about a 52nd, 53rd or a 54th resolution to use armed force against Iraq for failure to comply.


When does Saddam and stalling become part of the libs opinion change? If he didn't have them then why act coy? Why fuck with UNSCOM? Why not throw open the doors to anybody and everybody and state that the information was flawed and here's the people in my administration that headed up the agencies you want to investigate?

I suppose it's just easier to bash away at America for acting in it's leadership role, but some will drone that it's just THIS President we have a problem with! Get over yourselves! There have been Presidents from both sides of the aisle that didn't want to go toe-toe with Saddam because of the political ramifications. Bush did and won! If Clinton claimed he had a mandate, then Bush most certainly has one for ponying up and going "all in" for something.

Anyone that calls him stupid is a real moron for not knowing the difference.

There are dreamers and then there are those that get things done.

I'd love to hear about all of the personal accomplishments that the loudest opponents to our President have that makes them the authority on the topics they rant about.

I'm willing to go on record that most haven't even served in the military, been overseas, owned their own company, hired or fired anyone, risked everything for what they believed in, but yet because someone clashes with their personal beliefs...whoa...troops are dying, we're killing reporters and other bullshit designed to feign away from what really is happening in that region.

FREEDOM.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

I'm willing to go on record that most (of the President's critics) haven't even served in the military, been overseas, owned their own company, hired or fired anyone, risked everything for what they believed in, but yet because someone clashes with their personal beliefs...whoa...troops are dying, we're killing reporters and other bullshit designed to feign away from what really is happening in that region.

FREEDOM.

They also weren't born with a large, silver spoon up their ass! And Bush didn't serve in the military either! No the real military anyway. Although Kerry did!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
When does Saddam and stalling become part of the libs opinion change? If he didn't have them then why act coy? Why fuck with UNSCOM? Why not throw open the doors to anybody and everybody and state that the information was flawed and here's the people in my administration that headed up the agencies you want to investigate?

I have the simple and in my mind 100% accurate reason for this. He was bluffing. He has some nasty neighbors and he wanted them to be afraid. I can't blame him one bit. US is across the world. Iran is right next door.

to answer the rest of your rant :) gw&friends definitely contributed to this insurgency by going to war with the army they had and made some serious strategic blunders.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They also weren't born with a large, silver spoon up their ass! And Bush didn't serve in the military either! No the real military anyway. Although Kerry did!


Kerry served less than you!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Kerry served less than you!

But he killed more people. So he has a higher body count.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I have the simple and in my mind 100% accurate reason for this. He was bluffing. He has some nasty neighbors and he wanted them to be afraid. I can't blame him one bit. US is across the world. Iran is right next door.

to answer the rest of your rant :) gw&friends definitely contributed to this insurgency by going to war with the army they had and made some serious strategic blunders.

Oh bullshit. The root cause of this insurgency is terrorists, pure and simple. It's not Iraqis getting mad at US occupation or any of these other bullshit excuses. It's Zarqawi's men just trying to stir shit up to cause unrest in the area. They don't want the US to succeed because their ass is grass if they do.

I'm tired of this 'we're responsible for the terrorists bombing our asses over there' bit. Gets old real quick.

I suppose you think we were responsible for 9/11 too, right?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh bullshit. The root cause of this insurgency is terrorists, pure and simple.
I'm tired of this 'we're responsible for the terrorists bombing our asses over there' bit. Gets old real quick.

I suppose you think we were responsible for 9/11 too, right?

I said "contributed to" not "was the root cause of"

"Terrorists"? In general? Just blowing shit up for the fun of it?

What I said was not bullshit. You didn't even argue against what I said, so... I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.



"We" weren't responsible for 9-11?

I was responsible because I didn't protest enough or vote enough. Because I drive a car a lot. Because I enjoy cheap prices for food and raw materials that make the products I buy.

We fucked a lot of those people over for a long time and I don't blame them for hitting back.

Fuck them, I want to win and I don't care how many of them dead it takes to do it (although the more we kill them the stronger they get). But one way to win is to get our boot off their fucking neck.

Although in Syria's case, things are progressing. It ain't black and white War-ham.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But he killed more people. So he has a higher body count.

I'd say you have a higher IQ.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I have the simple and in my mind 100% accurate reason for this. He was bluffing. He has some nasty neighbors and he wanted them to be afraid. I can't blame him one bit. US is across the world. Iran is right next door.

to answer the rest of your rant :) gw&friends definitely contributed to this insurgency by going to war with the army they had and made some serious strategic blunders.


I don't buy that for a minute. If Iran or Syria or any other nation dogpiled on Iraq for opening their doors and complying with UN resolutions we would've been the 1st ones on the ground with them defending their nation!

Saddam knew what he was doing. It didn't work. He was counting on France and Germany as well as the Soviet republics to stall or put off us acting on UN and national interests.

The intelligence was flawed like it had been for past Presidents that stood up to the Saddam regime, but this one dared to put boots on his turf. That's the difference.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I don't buy that for a minute. If Iran or Syria or any other nation dogpiled on Iraq for opening their doors and complying with UN resolutions we would've been the 1st ones on the ground with them defending their nation!

I disagree with that assessment. We always love to see other countries do our dirty work. I think it was all bluffing. The motive and the means where there.

Saddam knew what he was doing. It didn't work. He was counting on France and Germany as well as the Soviet republics to stall or put off us acting on UN and national interests.

You're right about that.

The intelligence was flawed like it had been for past Presidents that stood up to the Saddam regime, but this one dared to put boots on his turf. That's the difference.

You're right about that too. But I argue that the plan was fundamentaly flawed. That what I'm pissed about. People talk about how quickly we rolled Saddam. No shit we'd roll Saddam. That's the easy part, you know? They said they'd burn the ground under us and they weren't kidding. We should have planned for that in order to minimize it, but we didn't. Because of Rumsfeld's arrogance and incompence. That's my view anyway.

[DrMaddVibe]

KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia -- It was a scene the Arab world's autocratic regimes have dreaded - and through the power of satellite TV, it could catch on as fast as the latest hit music video: Peaceful, enormous crowds carrying flags and flowers bringing down a government.

What happened in Lebanon this week, analysts say, is the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, one in which popular demand pushes the momentum for democracy and people's will can no longer be disregarded.

Story Continues Below

Television stations broadcast Beirut's protests live into homes, coffee shops and clubs across the Middle East, with the dramatic images of Lebanese youths wearing red-and-white scarves and waving the country's red, white and green flag as they handed out roses Monday to troops who had been ordered to block them. The coverage, lasting all day with hardly a break on some stations, culminated with the Syrian-backed government's resignation.

Inevitably, it raised the question among many spectators: What about here?

"I wish this could happen in Yemen," Ahmed Murtada, an unemployed Yemeni, said in San'a. "But here, tanks would prevail."

Anas Khashoggi, a 46-year-old management consultant in the Saudi city of Jiddah, said he followed Monday's events from beginning to end. "I wanted ... to see how the government reacts to the will of the people," he said.

Was he disappointed? "Not at all," he said.

The scenes from Lebanon come as Saudis are having their first - albeit small - taste of democracy. In the second round of the country's first nationwide elections ever, Saudi men go to the polls Thursday in the kingdom's east and south to choose municipal councils. The monarchy has been promising reform, but going slowly.

Newspapers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt - authoritarian nations where the state heavily influences the press - did not shy away from showing the protests.

"The Lebanese street joins the opposition," read the banner headline across the front page of the Saudi daily Okaz, along with photos of the Lebanese protest tents and a banner in Arabic reading, "We want the truth."

In Syria, however, the state-controlled media was largely silent. It reported on the resignation of Prime Minister Omar Karami but did not mention - much less show pictures - of the protests. State TV aired none of the dramatic footage the few Syrians with satellite dishes could see with a flick of the channel.

Syria has kept a firm hand on its small reform movement. But it had a rare instance of civil violence last year, when riots in March between Kurds and police spread to parts of northeastern Syria and killed at least 25 people in unrest sparked by a soccer brawl but fueled by Kurdish resentment.

"What happened in Lebanon conforms with our hopes for every Arab country," said Michel Kilo, a Syrian intellectual. "It was a rehearsal for a peaceful popular movement that unfolded right before our eyes."

The protests in Lebanon - triggered by the assassination of the popular former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14 - come on the heels of a string of democratic steps in the Arab world, including elections in Iraq and by the Palestinians, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's promise to allow multi-candidate presidential elections.

But the forcing out of Lebanon's government sets a very different precedent in a region where freedom of speech is muzzled, human rights activists are jailed and sons either succeed or are being groomed to succeed their fathers.

"For the first time in the history of the Arab world, a country's policy has come face-to-face with the will of the people who went down to the street and said: 'We don't want you,"' said Dalal al-Bizri, a Cairo-based Lebanese sociologist.

"The minimum feeling among Arab masses now will be: 'Are the Lebanese better than us?"' she said.

Many may be wary of where the people spirit takes Lebanon. If the protests drag the country into civil war or prompt a fierce Syrian response, as some critics have warned, bloodshed could scare off others.

Also, Lebanon's uniqueness in the region could lessen the events' impact. Its 3.5-million people belong to 17 sects, with large Christian and Shiite communities. Its press is the freest in the Middle East. Its issues are with external domination from Syria, not a domestic government, and the protests resulted from the explosive trigger of Hariri's murder.

Still, with television making people power visible to all, "it's a phenomenon that will catch on the way music video clips have caught on," said al-Bizri.

It may not spread quickly, however. Sherine Bilal, a 19-year-old Egyptian student, was wary of the limits imposed in her country, where protests are usually restricted to university campuses.

"Here, if we try to demonstrate, we can only do it inside these walls," Bilal said from at the American University in Cairo. "Even then, it's only about certain things."

But Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi talk show host on Dubai TV, had a warning for Arab governments, pointing to Ukraine's Orange Revolution: "Either they embrace the orange, or they will find themselves slipping on the peels of bananas."

© 2005 The Associated Press