0
   

COSTS OF WAR IN IRAQ

 
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 08:47 am
Blatham wrote:
Citizens out on the street protesting government policies...writers in the press pointing out inconsistencies and deceits...courts and congress that do not just rubber stamp the latest debauched grab for power...such citizen engagement in the nation is what you consider a threat to democracy when it is evidence of democracy. Fox turns into Pravda and you think it is just swell.

There oughta be a law. Specifically, that law ought to demand that every set of chess pieces have pawns with big doofus grins on their faces.


There once was a professor from a Canadian county

He wrung his hands and gnashed his teeth at the American bounty

With academic delight he sought to destroy the American dream but

instead he came to be known as a crazy mountie
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 09:23 am
What cost here?
Quote:
British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
Michael Smith

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began "spikes of activity" designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300,00.html
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 09:31 am
blatham wrote:
What cost here?
Quote:
British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
Michael Smith

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began "spikes of activity" designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300,00.html


It's history Blatham..........get over it or you will go "over the edge".

BTW.......I'm absolutely crushed that you totally ignored my first ever attempt at poetry Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:07 am
Quote:
There once was a professor from a Canadian county

He wrung his hands and gnashed his teeth at the American bounty

With academic delight he sought to destroy the American dream but

instead he came to be known as a crazy mountie


Tips:

Your first line sets this up rather like a limerick ("there once was a lady from Venus...") and you risk disappointing your reader by then not following the form. Not a terminal failing but a negative.

Your metre (rhythm and accent) is off. One reason why limericks retain such a long-lasting popularity is their adherence to a predictable rhythm scheme. Same with much popular music or, say, four bar blues. You can map out your lines, noting syllable count and accent, then carry it through the remaining structure, ie, to use the earlier...
there ONCE was a LAdy from VENus
who PULLED out a GIgantic PENis
How simple or complicated this scheme might be will depend on what you are trying to achieve and who your supposed audience might be. If your audience is likely to be mainly right wing sorts, then keep everything very simple and cliched.

You've made spelling errors. No big thing except as regards how that reflects upon your credibility and effort.

Use alliteration and internal rhyme. These elements (along with some others) help a sentence to flow easily off the tongue (and even if one reads silently, the effect is much the same). Ella Fitzgerald has spoken of the joy in singing lyrics written by fellows like Ira Gershwin or Irving Berlin or Cole Porter because of their attention to this voicing element.

Avoid at all costs predictability in word combinations and ideas (again, unless you're audience is mainly conservatives, who are easily thrown emotionally and cognitively by anything fresh or original). For example, rather than 'crazy Mountie', go with something like "the mad mendacious mountie"...much more interesting and you get alliterative gain to boot.

Avoid factual errors...Canada does not have counties.

C-
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:14 am
If we are unable to determine the future cost of the Iraq war, it's useless to repeat what the US already paid in human life and billions. Bush has the advantage of most Americans inability to equate those costs to what we could have accomplished with another president. Almost fifty percent of Ameriacns still think Bush is doing a good job. There's no use argument with such ignorance.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:46 am
\\


Laughing Well it seems I'm a complete failure as a poet so I won't attempt that again,

Guess I'm better stick with shredding liberal arguments :wink:
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:51 am
chiczaira wrote:
Parados- Is your avatar a picture of a whining child?

How apt!!!


awww.. Chic..... and your avator is "nothing" :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 11:37 am
rayban1 wrote:
\\


Laughing Well it seems I'm a complete failure as a poet so I won't attempt that again,

Guess I'm better stick with shredding liberal arguments :wink:


I'm a strict marker and C- is not a failing grade. Buck up. Read good wordsmiths (the lyricists mentioned above, or Dylan or Tom Waits, are writers as competent and exciting as Alexander Pope or Hardy).

Your political commentary, on the other hand, is so far a D.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:15 pm
blatham wrote:
rayban1 wrote:



Laughing Well it seems I'm a complete failure as a poet so I won't attempt that again,

Guess I'm better stick with shredding liberal arguments :wink:


I'm a strict marker and C- is not a failing grade. Buck up. Read good wordsmiths (the lyricists mentioned above, or Dylan or Tom Waits, are writers as competent and exciting as Alexander Pope or Hardy).

Your political commentary, on the other hand, is so far a D.



Laughing The fact that you don't like my political commentary means that I am a great success......thanks
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:26 pm
ray, if what you post is what you call "political commentary" I can only assume you refer to the Bill of Rights as "romance literature".
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:47 pm
dyslexia wrote:
ray, if what you post is what you call "political commentary" I can only assume you refer to the Bill of Rights as "romance literature".


Oh another unhappy customer on the opposite end of the political spectrum..........I am honored Laughing I will soon rank right up there with OReilly and Hannity on the hate honor roll. High praise indeed......thanks.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 12:48 pm
de nada
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 01:05 pm
According to Rummy, the war in Iraq is progressing well. He seems to shy away from the cost of this war for good reason. http://www.costofwar.com/
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 01:12 pm
Yeah, that's the same link that blatham started this thread with.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 01:15 pm
I'm trying to give his thread a boost. Wink
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 02:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If we are unable to determine the future cost of the Iraq war, it's useless to repeat what the US already paid in human life and billions. Bush has the advantage of most Americans inability to equate those costs to what we could have accomplished with another president. Almost fifty percent of Ameriacns still think Bush is doing a good job. There's no use argument with such ignorance.


I always wonder what gets into peoples heads. This whole war on terror, and the War in Iraq which is an extension of that, is not winnable. You do not declare war on a tactic - terror.

I find it funny that governments do not learn from history. The French underestimated the Vietnamese at the battle of Dien Bien Phu and lost. Not having learned from their experience, they reinacted the same idiocy in Algeria and lost. The Russians similarly went into Afghanistan underestimating them and lost. Now the U.S. went into Vietnam in a similar way underestimated the people. Now it is in a similar position. In all these cases the assumption that a reliance on powerful weapons and technology is enough to guarantee victory.

As Fred Reed so aptly stated about what the price is for Iraq:

"A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don't count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America's influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 03:49 pm
Anonymouse wrote:

I always wonder what gets into peoples heads. This whole war on terror, and the War in Iraq which is an extension of that, is not winnable. You do not declare war on a tactic - terror.


Since the war on terror is unwinnable, it leads us to the idea that our only hope is to reduce terror to the point where we can live with it. So far we have seen anyone that makes a statement about reducing terror to the point where we can live without fear or reducing it to the point it becomes a policing issue being excoriated for being unreasonable and on the side of the terrorists.

The reality is we will always have the Osama Bin Ladens, the Eric Rudolphs, the Timothy McVeighs. The key is to prevent them from becoming a movement. That is the only thing we can really fight.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 03:58 pm
Bush and his criminals thought this was going to be an "easy war." They thought the Iraqis were going to throw flowers on the streets to welcome us. Instead we have found suicide bombers. That's the extreme of ignorance and incompetence of this administration. Rummy told congress "we're winning this war." He's the same guy that told congresss we knew where all those WMDs were hidden in Iraq. Congress keeps listening to this guy who has zilch credibility.
0 Replies
 
chiczaira
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:10 pm
Gee, Cicerone, If Bush and his people are "Criminals" wouldn't it be a good idea if they were impeached? I think so, don't you? The problem is that danged Tom Delay. He just won't let Nancy Pelosi introduce an Impeachment initiative in the House.

Well. maybe the Democrats will take over the House in 2006. And if they don't Cicerone?

We will just be stuck with the Republicans lose to Hitlery in 2008.

Hopefully, Bush will have appointed enough conservative judges by that time to see to it that she can do little if any mischeif.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2005 10:21 pm
Chici,
You seem to be having a problem with spelling today. It is Hillary. You seem to have replaced a l with a t on a few threads. Also, "mischeif" is actually spelled mischief. I know how critical you are of spelling.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/30/2014 at 04:12:40