Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي

mamasw

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mamasw

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/16/1948

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://home.earthlink.net/~mamaswami/

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tallahassee, Florida, USA
  • Interests
    Computers, art, computer art :D...<br><br>College work in anthropology/ prehistoric civilizations<br>Career in mainframe computers<br>
  1. A truck driver from Texas was delivering a load of building equipment in Iraq. He came to a low bridge, but being accustomed to the old English measurement system, he misunderstood the metric height limit sign. His truck was firmly stuck under the bridge. An amused Iraqi policeman walked up to the driver and said, "Well, I see you got stuck!" Unable to allow his Texas ego to be challenged, the driver replied, "No... actually I was delivering this bridge and ran out of gas!"
  2. Well said, Ripama. To our Iraqi friends: "Freedom" is one of the few things in life that can be shared with others without depleting our own stock. ("Love" is another.) The more people there are who are free to persue their dreams, the wealthier the society they live in becomes and the more safe and secure the entire world is. And why would we care if the rest of the world is more safe? Because we don't want to see another plane flying into the Sears Tower in Chicago or the Capitol Building in Washington. Making sure countries that had once been a source of trouble become free is the only way to assure that in the long run. We have already seen that the temporary fixes offered by the UN do not work. So we took matters into our own hands. You can assign all sorts of motivations to why we are in Iraq, but the simple fact is that a free Iraq will RESULT in a safer world. And it is the end result that we are most interested in .
  3. Hi Abu Mohammed Nice to meet you! Why would an American organization depend on these people? Hmmmm... there have been some interesting responses here, but not the one I suspect to be the most likly: It is most likely that when this organization started up, they simply were looking for Arabic speakers who would go into Iraq with them. The organization may very well have another agenda of its own, but the problem with finding translators who will go to Iraq in this period of unrest is a large one for Americans. Personally, I would prefer to see them hire local Iraqis to help.
  4. Actually, the simple truth of the matter is VERY simple: Haliburton built the original infrastructure that it was allowed to repair. They had the original blueprints, and knew what was in Iraq and what likely was needing repair after being neglected for years. OR they could have spent 6 months to a year wrangling with job bids, eventually awarding the contract to a bidder who could then get started (IF none of the other bidders decided to sue and keep the case tied up in court for the next 5 years!!!). The first thing they would do is go to Haliburton, obtain copies of their blueprints, inventories, and equipment and parts descriptions, begin a survey of the properties in Iraq, evaluate what needs to be done, possibly order parts from Haliburton, and then get on with doing it. This would have placed the beginning of reconstruction approximately three or four months from today, if not much, much later. Or they could just go straight to Haliburton and get the job done immediately. I like the way they did it, myself . Only an incurable bureaucrat would think the other way might have been somehow "better".
  5. There is just one teensy-weensy but ever so significant detail wrong with this article: ALL of the UN Security Mandates concerning Saddam's weapons of mass destructions, starting with the Gulf War resolution, stated CLEARLY that all WMD destruction was to be carried out IN THE PRESENCE OF THE UN INSPECTORS. That is what is meant by item Sec. B Paragrah 8 of UN Resolution 687, which was written at the end of the Gulf War. The fact that IF the WMDs were destroyed without international supervision, that alone was a violation of Resolution 687: UN Resolution 687 If Saddam was stupid enough to destroy them WITHOUT the presence of the inspectors, that was HIS problem... and, as stated above, by itself a violation of UN Res. 687. He had a long track record of lying just for the sake of lying, so we could not take his non-existant word for it, or from anyone from his regime, that they had been destroyed. He brought the invasion down on himself, if he destroyed them without Inspectors present. However, let me now state that Saddam was egomaniacal, not stupid. I still to this day do NOT believe he ever destroyed the WMDs. They are hidden, buried, or moved to Syria. That bomb with the sarin gas that was recently found demonstrates that something that did not exist when the UN took the inventory of the WMD exists in Iraq now. There is presently no infrastructure to make weapons like that, so if it is from Iraq, it had to have come into existence between 1991 and last year before the invasion. And it is not likely that only ONE such bomb was made. There is probably an entire stash of them hidden somewhere in Iraq. If it came from Syria, there is still no proof that it is NOT from Iraq and was moved there during the months when the UN was wrangling with Bush over the WMD's. Personally, I think this IS a part of the WMD's, and that only the tip of the iceburg has been revealed!
  6. Hi Tajer, I am certainly glad to see that you are on top of this story! Here is a link that gives a partial explanation: http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/boudreaux.asp This website shows how easy it is to do this: http://www.ryano.net/iraq/ You can add anything you want to the sign in the picture, which is why so many different sayings on the sign have appeared recently. This feature was placed on the 'Net to show how easy it is to make fake pictures with good computer software. As I am a computer artist, I'm well aware of what can be done. The way I understand the story, Lance Corporal Boudreaux, the Marine in the picture, e-mailed a copy of the original image to his mother and some copies to friends. One of his friends evidently thought it would be funny to change the words on the sign and post it on the InterNet, obviously ignorant of the kind of storm it would cause. However, Boudreaux says that the copy he sent to his mother, the original image, says, "Welcome, Marines". The image the mother received hasn't been released to the InterNet, but I see no reason to disbelieve Boudreaux's story. My father was a Marine, and that's the sort of thing a Marine would put on a sign. Marines are very proud of their military service. So, while there is presently no way to prove what the sign originally said, anyone who doubts that the picture is fake can look at the faces of the two boys. Do they LOOK as if the soldier in the picture had just killed their father? No! Thanks again for reminding us that these things are not always real! We must always be suspicious of photographs that appear on the InterNet!
  7. Wow... that's a really curious interpretation of the Abu Graib situation! Do the people who say this know that the trials for those criminals are already taking place? Or do they just not care, looking only to place blame? As a military veteran who served honorably in 1969-1971, I can not say I am ashamed of those prison guards... Shame doesn't cover the emotion. I am angry! If they were within my reach, I would kick them at the very least! They would need guards to protect them from me! They have done harm to people in their care, and have disgraced their brothers and sisters in uniform. In reference to this: "If there is some one who might mis print the orders then not all those brave soldiers are criminals.." It doesn't matter what orders say. When orders are illegal, the US military is expected to disobey. They, as I did in 1969, have sworn an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Our 8th Amendment to our Constitution makes "cruel and unusual punishment" illegal. So even if those guards were ordered to do what they did, they had an obligation to disobey. Protecting the law the Constitution represents is more important than orders of a commander. So they can't use that as an excuse. This is one of the great things about having a Constitution. When the permanent Constitution your people will write becomes official, your military should be required to swear their oath of allegence to THAT, and not whoever happens to be President of Iraq at any given time. If, in the future, God forbid, someone tries to take over your government as Saddam did, your military will be honor-bound to disobey his orders.
  8. Salim, Thank you for the link to your Interim Constitution. It is a beautiful document, and a pleasure to read . This first statement in the Preamble is particularly beautiful! God's blessings upon your people. May these great words remain true forever!
  9. Canadian... ROFL! Puhleeeeeeeeze! You are aware, aren't you, that if this were only about oil, it would have been easier, cheaper, and politically safer for Bush to have signed an executive order that said, "Commence drilling on the Florida side of the Gulf of Mexico"???? We have what could be one of the largest untapped oil resevoirs in the world under the Gulf of Mexico. We honestly don't know how big it is. What we DO know is that there are fissures on the floor of the Gulf that have been leeching oil for years. For decades small oil slicks have been blamed on dirty shipping heading for the Mississippi Delta, but scuba divers reported that it was coming up from fissures, and so it was tested within the past few years and was found to be unprocessed crude oil, not leakage from shipping. Fully half of our access to the Gulf oil resevoir isn't being utilized. The entire 600 or so miles of Florida's Gulf coastline is platform-free. The reason has to do with tourists. But we're getting oil leaks from the fissures anyway, so I don't see what the big problem is. We have a refinery shortage created by environmentalists. True that if we started building more refineries and Gulf platforms right this minute it would take a couple of years for that oil to come online and it would be costly to build the infrastructure, but that would still be a lot faster and cheaper than spending billions a day in Iraq trying to create a democracy. So why didn't he just do that? Environmentalists don't like Bush anyway. He has no reason to pander to them . The old "oil" argument doesn't wash. Oil IS a consideration, but the notion that it is the ONLY consideration is total hogwash!
×
×
  • Create New...