Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"The war in the Congo is the deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe. When I reported on it, I saw the worst things I could have ever conceived of: armies of drugged and mutilated children, women who had been gang-raped and shot in the vagina. Over five million people have been killed so far – and the trail of blood runs directly to your mobile phone and mine.

The major UN investigation into the war explained how it happened. They said bluntly and factually that "armies of business" had invaded Congo to pillage its resources and sell them to the knowing West. The most valuable loot is coltan, which is used to make the metal in our mobile phones and games consoles and laptops. The "armies of business" fought and killed to control the mines and send it to us. The UN listed some of the major Western corporations fuelling this trade, and said if they were stopped, it would largely end the war.

Last year, after a decade, the US finally passed legislation that was – in theory, at least – supposed to deal with this. As I explain in the forthcoming BBC Radio 4 programme 4Thought, it outlined an entirely voluntary system to trace who was buying coltan and other conflict minerals from the mass murderers, and so driving the war. (There are plenty of other places we can get coltan from, although it's slightly more expensive.) The State Department was asked to draw up some kind of punishment for transgressors, and given 140 days to do it.

Now the deadline has passed. What's the punishment? It turns out the State Department didn't have the time or inclination to draft anything. Maybe it was too busy preparing to bomb Libya, because – obviously – it can't tolerate the killing of innocent people. (Britain and other European countries have been exactly the same.) Here was a chance to stop the worst violence against civilians in the world that didn't require any bombs, or violence of our own. If the rhetoric about Libya was sincere, this was a no-brainer. It would only cost a few corporations some money – and they refuse to do it. So the worst war since 1945 goes on.

This all went unreported. By contrast, when the Congolese government recently nationalized a mine belonging to US and British corporations, there was a fire-burst of fury in the press. You can kill five million people and we'll politely look away; but take away the property of rich people, and we get really angry. "




The rest of the article is a hoot.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 64785.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Since 2004, the US – with European support – has been sending unmanned robot-planes into Pakistan to illegally bomb its territory in precisely this way. Barack Obama has massively intensified this policy.

His administration claims they are killing al-Qa'ida. But there are several flaws in this argument. The intelligence guiding their bombs about who is actually a jihadi is so poor that, for six months, Nato held top-level negotiations with a man who claimed to be the head of the Taliban – only for him to later admit he was a random Pakistani grocer who knew nothing about the organisation. He just wanted some baksheesh. The US's own former senior military advisers admit that even when the intel is accurate, for every one jihadi they kill, as many as 50 innocent people die. And almost everyone in Pakistan believes these attacks are actually increasing the number of jihadis, by making young men so angry at the killing of their families they queue to sign up.

So one of the country's best writers, Fatima Bhutto, tells me: "In Pakistan, when we hear Obama's rhetoric on Libya, we can only laugh. If he was worried about the pointless massacre of innocent civilians, there would be an easy first step for him: stop doing it yourself, in my country."

Yup...
For every one Jihad Taliban bad guy 50 civilians die (says the article) and the Red Cross confirms this and has been confirming numbers similar to this for a decade now

I am ANTI-WAR in a world where we have no idea who we're killing
Iraq - Afghanistan - North Africa - South Africa - Libya - it's all the same...

Cluck U wrote:"The war in the Congo is the deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe. When I reported on it, I saw the worst things I could have ever conceived of: armies of drugged and mutilated children, women who had been gang-raped and shot in the vagina. Over five million people have been killed so far – and the trail of blood runs directly to your mobile phone and mine.

The major UN investigation into the war explained how it happened. They said bluntly and factually that "armies of business" had invaded Congo to pillage its resources and sell them to the knowing West. The most valuable loot is coltan, which is used to make the metal in our mobile phones and games consoles and laptops. The "armies of business" fought and killed to control the mines and send it to us. The UN listed some of the major Western corporations fuelling this trade, and said if they were stopped, it would largely end the war.

Last year, after a decade, the US finally passed legislation that was – in theory, at least – supposed to deal with this. As I explain in the forthcoming BBC Radio 4 programme 4Thought, it outlined an entirely voluntary system to trace who was buying coltan and other conflict minerals from the mass murderers, and so driving the war. (There are plenty of other places we can get coltan from, although it's slightly more expensive.) The State Department was asked to draw up some kind of punishment for transgressors, and given 140 days to do it.

Now the deadline has passed. What's the punishment? It turns out the State Department didn't have the time or inclination to draft anything. Maybe it was too busy preparing to bomb Libya, because – obviously – it can't tolerate the killing of innocent people. (Britain and other European countries have been exactly the same.) Here was a chance to stop the worst violence against civilians in the world that didn't require any bombs, or violence of our own. If the rhetoric about Libya was sincere, this was a no-brainer. It would only cost a few corporations some money – and they refuse to do it. So the worst war since 1945 goes on.

This all went unreported. By contrast, when the Congolese government recently nationalized a mine belonging to US and British corporations, there was a fire-burst of fury in the press. You can kill five million people and we'll politely look away; but take away the property of rich people, and we get really angry. "




The rest of the article is a hoot.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 64785.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Since 2004, the US – with European support – has been sending unmanned robot-planes into Pakistan to illegally bomb its territory in precisely this way. Barack Obama has massively intensified this policy.

His administration claims they are killing al-Qa'ida. But there are several flaws in this argument. The intelligence guiding their bombs about who is actually a jihadi is so poor that, for six months, Nato held top-level negotiations with a man who claimed to be the head of the Taliban – only for him to later admit he was a random Pakistani grocer who knew nothing about the organisation. He just wanted some baksheesh. The US's own former senior military advisers admit that even when the intel is accurate, for every one jihadi they kill, as many as 50 innocent people die. And almost everyone in Pakistan believes these attacks are actually increasing the number of jihadis, by making young men so angry at the killing of their families they queue to sign up.

So one of the country's best writers, Fatima Bhutto, tells me: "In Pakistan, when we hear Obama's rhetoric on Libya, we can only laugh. If he was worried about the pointless massacre of innocent civilians, there would be an easy first step for him: stop doing it yourself, in my country."

sounds an awful lot like another illegal invasion that I am vaguely familiar with,

Chizzang wrote:Yup...
For every one Jihad Taliban bad guy 50 civilians die (says the article) and the Red Cross confirms this and has been confirming numbers similar to this for a decade now

I am ANTI-WAR in a world where we have no idea who we're killing
Iraq - Afghanistan - North Africa - South Africa - Libya - it's all the same...

We don't care about civilians. That's just the sales pitch.

"Most of us have a low feeling that we are not being told the real reasons for the war in Libya. David Cameron's instinctive response to the Arab revolutions was to jump on a plane and tour the palaces of the region's dictators selling them the most hi-tech weapons of repression available. Nicolas Sarkozy's instinctive response to the Arab revolutions was to offer urgent aid to the Tunisian tyrant in crushing his people. Barack Obama's instinctive response to the Arab revolutions was to refuse to trim the billions in aid going to Hosni Mubarak and his murderous secret police, and for his Vice-President to declare: "I would not refer to him as a dictator."

Yet now we are told that these people have turned into the armed wing of Amnesty International."

Buck up, people. There are worse things to die for than my Playstation and my IPod.

CID1990 wrote:Buck up, people. There are worse things to die for than my Playstation and my IPod.

This whole thread reeks of Noam Chomsky
You republicans better be careful these days - you're starting to quote articles that prove Noam is correct about his assessment of the American Corporate War Machine

When Noam was talking about Iraq 8 years ago all you guys Poo Pooed him as a wing-nut
And everything he said ended up being basically correct
and now you're starting threads that are right out of the Chomsky play book

Interesting (very interesting)

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Buck up, people. There are worse things to die for than my Playstation and my IPod.

This whole thread reeks of Noam Chomsky
You republicans better be careful these days - you're starting to quote articles that prove Noam is correct about his assessment of the American Corporate War Machine

When Noam was talking about Iraq 8 years ago all you guys Poo Pooed him as a wing-nut
And everything he said ended up being basically correct
and now you're starting threads that are right out of the Chomsky play book

Interesting (very interesting)

I like Chomsky, and the debates with Buckley are classic.

I agree with him sometimes, but Chomsky makes all of his arguments from the standpoint that foreign policy should be ALWAYS be morality-based instead of national interest based. Both approaches have merit in different situations. Chomsky is not taken seriously because he is a "baby with the bathwater" radical.

But let's leave Chomsky out of this shall we? I'd prefer to avoid another "Vietnam was about the oil" debates from the resident wingnuts quoting your wingnut.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

This whole thread reeks of Noam Chomsky
You republicans better be careful these days - you're starting to quote articles that prove Noam is correct about his assessment of the American Corporate War Machine

When Noam was talking about Iraq 8 years ago all you guys Poo Pooed him as a wing-nut
And everything he said ended up being basically correct
and now you're starting threads that are right out of the Chomsky play book

Interesting (very interesting)

I like Chomsky, and the debates with Buckley are classic.

I agree with him sometimes, but Chomsky makes all of his arguments from the standpoint that foreign policy should be ALWAYS be morality-based instead of national interest based. Both approaches have merit in different situations. Chomsky is not taken seriously because he is a "baby with the bathwater" radical.

But let's leave Chomsky out of this shall we? I'd prefer to avoid another "Vietnam was about the oil" debates from the resident wingnuts quoting your wingnut.

Well you'll have to talk T-Man off the ledge...
He'd sooner eat his hat and dance with Michelle Obama than admit Chomsky was right about anything - never mind a sh!tload of things... as it turns out anyway

Did Chomsky say Vietnam was about oil...? (Yikes)

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president since 1955 would have been hanged."
— Noam Chomsky (1990)


Oh how true... sad but true

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I like Chomsky, and the debates with Buckley are classic.

I agree with him sometimes, but Chomsky makes all of his arguments from the standpoint that foreign policy should be ALWAYS be morality-based instead of national interest based. Both approaches have merit in different situations. Chomsky is not taken seriously because he is a "baby with the bathwater" radical.

But let's leave Chomsky out of this shall we? I'd prefer to avoid another "Vietnam was about the oil" debates from the resident wingnuts quoting your wingnut.

Well you'll have to talk T-Man off the ledge...
He'd sooner eat his hat and dance with Michelle Obama than admit Chomsky was right about anything - never mind a sh!tload of things... as it turns out anyway

Did Chomsky say Vietnam was about oil...? (Yikes)
"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president since 1955 would have been hanged."
— Noam Chomsky (1990)


Oh how true... sad but true

No, he didn't, but somebody on this board (Pretty sure it was "Mr. Operative" TTBF) tried to spin that he did in another thread.

We're their arms dealer, their rare earth and precious minerals customer, and their friendly banker, and this is how we get treated?

Thanks Cluck

kalm wrote:We're their arms dealer, their rare earth and precious minerals customer, and their friendly banker, and this is how we get treated?

Thanks Cluck

No problem. Thought you'd enjoy the article.

As to some of Obama's supporters, if anyone thinks any war is about protecting innocent civilians...you are really, really, stupid. No other way around it.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:We're their arms dealer, their rare earth and precious minerals customer, and their friendly banker, and this is how we get treated?

Thanks Cluck

No problem. Thought you'd enjoy the article.

As to some of Obama's supporters, if anyone thinks any war is about protecting innocent civilians...you are really, really, stupid. No other way around it.

I'm so proud of you, you were listening when we told you that Bush saying we were in Iraq to save the Iraqis from Saddam was bullshit!

Chizzang wrote:Yup...
For every one Jihad Taliban bad guy 50 civilians die (says the article) and the Red Cross confirms this and has been confirming numbers similar to this for a decade now

I am ANTI-WAR in a world where we have no idea who we're killing
Iraq - Afghanistan - North Africa - South Africa - Libya - it's all the same...

Whatchoo mean no idea who we're killing? Those bombings are done with surgical precision.

houndawg wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
No problem. Thought you'd enjoy the article.

As to some of Obama's supporters, if anyone thinks any war is about protecting innocent civilians...you are really, really, stupid. No other way around it.

I'm so proud of you, you were listening when we told you that Bush saying we were in Iraq to save the Iraqis from Saddam was bullshit!

Hey, I wanted to blow the hell out of the Iraqis if they were going to threaten us with WMDs.

But lets face it, the Libs went ballistic and bitched about the killing of innocent civilians and the chaos we created. That is ridiculous in so many ways.

C'mon, no one gave a shvt about Iraqi civilians while Saddam was murdering them. And no one gave a shvy about Libyans dying before the TV revolutions. And the liberals don't seem to give a crap about the civilians dying at the hands of our weapons in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc. Oil prices are through the roof, yet suddenly liberals are weighing civilian lives in those countries versus our "national interests". Most Libs have become rather quiet about their protests about deaths of innocents and the deaths of our soldiers since Obama's been in charge.

John Bolton wrote a very effective piece in this week's National Review that skewers the theoretical underpinnings of a morality-based foreign policy. Its title: "Irresponsible."

Suck it, Chomsky, you old goat.

citdog wrote:
sounds an awful lot like another illegal invasion that I am vaguely familiar with,

William T. Sherman wrote: -War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.

-I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.

-My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

-The whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak violence upon South Carolina. I almost tremble for her fate.

Cluck U wrote:
Hey, I wanted to blow the hell out of the Iraqis if they were going to threaten us with WMDs.

But lets face it, the Libs went ballistic and bitched about the killing of innocent civilians and the chaos we created. That is ridiculous in so many ways.

C'mon, no one gave a shvt about Iraqi civilians while Saddam was murdering them. And no one gave a shvy about Libyans dying before the TV revolutions. And the liberals don't seem to give a crap about the civilians dying at the hands of our weapons in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc. Oil prices are through the roof, yet suddenly liberals are weighing civilian lives in those countries versus our "national interests". Most Libs have become rather quiet about their protests about deaths of innocents and the deaths of our soldiers since Obama's been in charge.

Hold on there Mr. Flip Flop
I know a whole sh!tload of liberals who don't think we should be in any war - anywhere right now... period
And still don't think we should be in any war anywhere - including Libya (actually especially Libya)

Please just:
Speak for yourself... you're telling Liberals what they are thinking
and you're wrong about it way more than you're right

I'm glad you finally see Iraq wasn't about Freedom
and Libya isn't about freedom
and Afghanistan isn't about freedom or catching Bin-Laden


Chomsky is right regarding our motives and you agree finally

Chizzang wrote:
I know a whole sh!tload of liberals who don't think we should be in any war - anywhere right now...

Please just:
Speak for yourself... you're telling Liberals what they are thinking

Way too funny.

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I know a whole sh!tload of liberals who don't think we should be in any war - anywhere right now...

Please just:
Speak for yourself... you're telling Liberals what they are thinking

Way too funny.

I'm glad I could entertain you...

Chizzang wrote:Hold on there Mr. Flip Flop

I'm glad you finally see Iraq wasn't about Freedom
and Libya isn't about freedom
and Afghanistan isn't about freedom or catching Bin-Laden


Chomsky is right regarding our motives and you agree finally

Finally agree?

Of course those wars mentioned weren't about any of those things. No war is about fluff...they are ALL about special interests. Name one that wasn't.

As for the assertion that the Libs are against the wars in Affy and Libya...have you watched the media coverage? Do you think it is anywhere close to what the media did to Bush? How many protests are covered by the media? How many protests are actually happening…and how many are in attendance? Where are the American death counts?

Let me give you a hint about Liberal interest in these wars...I live 2 blocks from UD's campus and walk through campus almost daily. There were protests going on constantly during the Bush administration...oil prices = Bush...wars = Bush is a murderer of civilians....Bush is a murderer of our soldiers...Bush is spending our children's money...yada, yada, yada. And my neighbors (mostly liberal professors)? Any political talk went straight to Bush and the above topics.

These days...crickets. And when I press the issue...and you know I do…they spew out that Obama is helping innocent civilians gain freedom. You have got to be kidding me.

Admittedly, I see in their eyes they are struggling to keep up the façade, but they are Hell bent on not admitting that the Changemaster they proudly put in office is just another Bush clown.

So don't tell me what Liberals are thinking...I live among them, young and old, and they, with VERY few exceptions, are hypocrites.

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Hold on there Mr. Flip Flop

I'm glad you finally see Iraq wasn't about Freedom
and Libya isn't about freedom
and Afghanistan isn't about freedom or catching Bin-Laden


Chomsky is right regarding our motives and you agree finally

Finally agree?

Of course those wars mentioned weren't about any of those things. No war is about fluff...they are ALL about special interests. Name one that wasn't.

As for the assertion that the Libs are against the wars in Affy and Libya...have you watched the media coverage? Do you think it is anywhere close to what the media did to Bush? How many protests are covered by the media? How many protests are actually happening…and how many are in attendance? Where are the American death counts?

Let me give you a hint about Liberal interest in these wars...I live 2 blocks from UD's campus and walk through campus almost daily. There were protests going on constantly during the Bush administration...oil prices = Bush...wars = Bush is a murderer of civilians....Bush is a murderer of our soldiers...Bush is spending our children's money...yada, yada, yada. And my neighbors (mostly liberal professors)? Any political talk went straight to Bush and the above topics.

These days...crickets. And when I press the issue...and you know I do…they spew out that Obama is helping innocent civilians gain freedom. You have got to be kidding me.

Admittedly, I see in their eyes they are struggling to keep up the façade, but they are Hell bent on not admitting that the Changemaster they proudly put in office is just another Bush clown.

So don't tell me what Liberals are thinking...I live among them, young and old, and they, with VERY few exceptions, are hypocrites.

Weird,
You live in the land of stupid Liberals ( very stupid)
and I live in the land of Stupid conservatives - I'm surrounded by them, and they are a sad lot of retards

I guess there is justice in the universe after all

Ivytalk wrote:John Bolton wrote a very effective piece in this week's National Review that skewers the theoretical underpinnings of a morality-based foreign policy. Its title: "Irresponsible."

Suck it, Chomsky, you old goat.

John Bolton.

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Finally agree?

Of course those wars mentioned weren't about any of those things. No war is about fluff...they are ALL about special interests. Name one that wasn't.

As for the assertion that the Libs are against the wars in Affy and Libya...have you watched the media coverage? Do you think it is anywhere close to what the media did to Bush? How many protests are covered by the media? How many protests are actually happening…and how many are in attendance? Where are the American death counts?

Let me give you a hint about Liberal interest in these wars...I live 2 blocks from UD's campus and walk through campus almost daily. There were protests going on constantly during the Bush administration...oil prices = Bush...wars = Bush is a murderer of civilians....Bush is a murderer of our soldiers...Bush is spending our children's money...yada, yada, yada. And my neighbors (mostly liberal professors)? Any political talk went straight to Bush and the above topics.

These days...crickets. And when I press the issue...and you know I do…they spew out that Obama is helping innocent civilians gain freedom. You have got to be kidding me.

Admittedly, I see in their eyes they are struggling to keep up the façade, but they are Hell bent on not admitting that the Changemaster they proudly put in office is just another Bush clown.

So don't tell me what Liberals are thinking...I live among them, young and old, and they, with VERY few exceptions, are hypocrites.

Weird,
You live in the land of stupid Liberals ( very stupid)
and I live in the land of Stupid conservatives - I'm surrounded by them, and they are a sad lot of retards

I guess there is justice in the universe after all

Seattle is the land of conservatives? Or is bellevue that much different...?