ADVERTISMENTS:
call us:
206-350-1082
support killoggs!
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 brandon 
|
Embargoed
Please use this post, instead of the Rec Room, to talk about:
(1) Yats
(2) Iraq
(3) Rap and Hip Hop
(4) Coitus with the mulletted, while lying in the back of the unspeakable
(5) Your 29th birthday.
(6) Brandon's very satisfying cock.
(7) Other topics
Begin. [ posted by brandon at 01/29/2008 03:53:26 PM ] [ trackback ]
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
 | rick [email] said at 3:59 PM 01-29-2008:
*crickets chirp* |
 | art [email] said at 4:18 PM 01-29-2008:
The question about embargoes (i hate the second 'e' in that word') is what else is there that can be done? |
|
| rick [email] said at 4:25 PM 01-29-2008:
My point was and is a) they are very unlikely to work and b) they tend to be more useful to the governments the US tries to target than they are to the us.
Again, besides South Africa, has there been any country that saw a significant sociopolitical shift due to economic sanctions? Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Yugoslavia all are (or were) the targets of sanctions and none of them had any weighty effect at all. Moreover, in the case of Iran and Cuba, the sanctions make the US look like meddlesome bullies.
So, if a policy has no noticeable benefit and some noticeable sociopolitical harms, why go about it at all? |
|
| art [email] said at 4:28 PM 01-29-2008:
Because 'something has to be done'. And it was not the US that embargoed Iraq - it was the UN. It annoys me that we always get blamed for crap like that |
|
| rick [email] said at 4:33 PM 01-29-2008:
Because 'something has to be done'.This is still does not excuse essentially flawed efforts. And yes, the UN authorized sanctions on Iraq, but it took the US to really enforce it. There is no way the neighboring states would have gone along with it (except perhaps for Iran) unless the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK) put its weight behind this edict. |
|
| art [email] said at 4:39 PM 01-29-2008:
aha! hence the basic lameness of the UN |
|
| rick [email] said at 4:40 PM 01-29-2008:
I'm not discussing the UN; I don't live there. I live here and as such I have some problems with the homeowner's association on steroids that's running the 'hood. |
 | josh [email] said at 4:47 PM 01-29-2008:
Libya has recently started to try and play nice, and from what I have read that is mainly because of the embargoes and other sanctions against it. They want to bounce back economically so are trying to remake their image etc. |
|
| rick [email] said at 4:52 PM 01-29-2008:
And from worries about other matters; it also helped that they got an opening in 9/11 (Gaddhafi had long been a target of radical Islamists and so could provide some intelligence to the US and the UK, and also had information about the Abdul Quadeer Khan network). But this says about as much about the mercurial nature of Gaddhafi as it does with the sanctions. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:06 PM 01-29-2008:
sure, i am just saying your assessment of santions never working should really say "they rarely/often dont work" |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:16 PM 01-29-2008:
even if your thesis were true (and I don't accept it so far), that is still a very poor record in terms of efficacy. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:38 PM 01-29-2008:
compared to what? doing nothing? i would be fine with us doing nothing to countries unless we perceived them as a direct threat. however, if the choice is embargo/sanctions vs do to war, destroy the country, then rebuild it (and we foot the bill for all of it), i'm for embargoes and sanctions generally. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:48 PM 01-29-2008:
Was Iraq a direct threat?Remember, paradoxically, the sanctions made Saddam Hussein stronger within Iraq itself. This was because all goods came through him. So if somebody wanted to eat, they had to work with the Ba'athist government (unless they lived in the Kurdish North). Also, smuggling which the US and UK turned a blind eye, to some degree too, was a very lucrative venture for Saddam (and also for the Kurds in the North). Meanwhile, the majority of Iraqis lived in absolute squalor (I remember reading The Economist in either 1999 or 2000 talking about how Iraq, along with Afghanistan, was one of the two worst places to live in the world). Middle Easterners got to see how the US policy was working for regular Iraqis whereas in the US, only a few people were aware. That being said, Madeleine Albright when confronted about this on Sixty Minutes said it was all worth it, if we did not have to go to war again. But I think this embargo helped get us into war. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:15 PM 01-30-2008:
i dont care if iraqis are living in squalor. that might be a bit harsh, i do care somewhat, but its not my main concern would be a better way to phrase it.
and its not like saddam would not have been rich and exploiting his people had there not been embargoes...? or are you saying if there had not been embargoes he somehow would have been less wealthy and less powerful in a global sense? |
|
| rick [email] said at 1:45 PM 01-30-2008:
i dont care if iraqis are living in squalor. that might be a bit harsh, i do care somewhat, but its not my main concern would be a better way to phrase it.I would agree with you except they were living in squalor due in no small part to our own government which your dime partially supports. It's different with North Korea where the lion's share of the blame may be laid at the feet of the Dear Leader. and its not like saddam would not have been rich and exploiting his people had there not been embargoes...? or are you saying if there had not been embargoes he somehow would have been less wealthy and less powerful in a global sense? My point with the embargo is it did not weaken Saddam Hussein within his own country, quite the opposite it strengthened him as everyone who wanted to live had to work with him. I am aware that some are born into utter Misfortune but it does not seem to be the business of our government to increase their ranks. The policy was a source of ire towards the US in the region, which is not really in the interest of the US. So if a policy is not helping matters and is in fact making things worse, why go about it? |
|
| art [email] said at 4:20 PM 01-29-2008:
~Lyrically:
One of these is not like the others... one of these doesn't belong... |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:41 PM 01-29-2008:
An embargo would not have cost as much as invasion and occupation but it was still wealth wasted on unworthy causes. Are you saying you do not mind your lucre being wasted as long as it does not rise above a certain amount?
my lucre is wasted constantly by the government. however, i think that epically wasting it to the point they have with iraq is pretty irresonsible. it's hurting our economy, hurting our future. again i ask the question(s) i asked in the rec room:
can you honestly say that money would not have been better spent at home, or better not spent at all?
can you honestly say that the lives of US citizens would be somehow worse off today if we had not gone to war in iraq?
rick, answer those two questions without asking another question first or going on a tangent. after you answer those two questions, then feel free to go on a tangent or ask other questions. |
|
| rick [email] said at 4:49 PM 01-29-2008:
can you honestly say that money would not have been better spent at home, or better not spent at all?I totally agree. My point though is that the embargo was also unethical, a waste of effort and wealth and helped put the US on the path to war. can you honestly say that the lives of US citizens would be somehow worse off today if we had not gone to war in iraq? No. The difference is, between your arguments and mine, is I go further in saying that our lives would have also been better had we not been engaged in the embargo. In fact, there is a case to be made that 9/11 might not have happened had it not been for the embargo. Bear in mind that Osama bin Laden's first source of outrage was the presence of non-Muslims troops from a foreign power in Saudi Arabia. He made this point many times, and was able to draw off a lot of outrage against the US because of its ongoing meddling in the region on behalf of non-benign entities (which included the very harmful and ineffective, from the US point of view, sanctions against Iraq). |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:51 PM 01-29-2008:
okay, sure. but my point is i'd rather support the lesser of two evils than taking a hard stance and saying "since neither of these realistic choices is perfect i'm gonna pick some other thing that is pie in the sky and will never happen" |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:06 PM 01-29-2008:
As long as you agree it was the wrong thing, then well and good.
But the US definitely needs to have a discussion about all this money we put into war and to maintain the several hundred overseas military outposts. I doubt most people are aware of the full extent or of how it hurts the US, not just in image and security, but also economically. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:07 PM 01-29-2008:
its wrong but on a scale of wrongness that is so different from the iraq war that its laughable to even compare the two. |
 | kiche [email] said at 4:48 PM 01-29-2008:
Are you saying you do not mind your lucre being wasted as long as it does not rise above a certain amount?
seriously rick, this is a stupid statement. of course governments, corporations and any large institution will ALWAYS inherently waste some money. it's the nature of the beast.
but invading iraq? this has been a colossal waste of money. if a corporation would have done something this idiotic and wasteful, they would have gone out of business. |
|
| rick [email] said at 4:53 PM 01-29-2008:
My question to Josh because he was all like "I don't care about the embargo but I hate government wasting my money" was "the embargo was a waste of money." |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:02 PM 01-29-2008:
the difference in money spent is astronomical though. |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:34 PM 01-29-2008:
As I said before, I believe the embargo was a significant factor in 9/11 and in any event was a contributing factor in our going to war with Iraq. In direct costs, of course it was much smaller than our current effort but it also was a significant factor in getting us to the brink of war. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:41 PM 01-29-2008:
if embargoes = going to war then why are we not at war with:
- cuba
- sudan
- burma
- zimbabwe
- the Ivory Coast
- the Congo
we have embargoes with all those countries. some of them have been going on longer than you or i have been alive! |
|
| art [email] said at 5:43 PM 01-29-2008:
North Korea
Libya
too
Although Japan claims that our embargo of them was the cause of WWII in the Pacific |
|
| kiche [email] said at 5:51 PM 01-29-2008:
we don't embargo libya anymore. |
|
| art [email] said at 5:57 PM 01-29-2008:
I know, but it did not result in a war with them |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:49 PM 01-29-2008:
We did have a number of skirmishes with them though. |
|
| art [email] said at 2:04 PM 01-30-2008:
reagan bombed them after a series of kidnapping of american citizens. |
|
| rick [email] said at 2:07 PM 01-30-2008:
Last night, I read that it was in retaliation for bombings of German discothecques in which US servicemembers were killed. |
 | brandon [email] said at 2:41 PM 01-30-2008:
Is there nothing zionism can't fuck up for us? No wonder the arabs hate the Jews, they killed Qadafyi's daughter. I'd hate the Jews, too. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:34 PM 01-29-2008:
I have never said embargos necessarily are a step towards war although I do believe the one against Iraq definitely helped us move along that path because we had to commit troops to the region to enforce it which as I pointed out before was extremely provocative to many in the region.if embargoes = going to war then why are we not at war with:
# cuba
# sudan
# burma
# zimbabwe
# the Ivory Coast
# the Congo
Well, first with Cuba, the US DID mastermind and fund the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Maybe that is not technically an act of war because US troops were not (as far as I know) in the landing parties.
With Sudan, the US DID bomb the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant because it supposedly made poison gas (a charge for which there is no proof). Maybe you do not consider these deeds >But as I have already mentioned, embargos are not necessarily acts of war; nonetheless, they should be used sparingly if at all. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:54 PM 01-29-2008:
Argh. Maybe you do not consider these deeds "acts of war." |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:16 PM 01-30-2008:
all i am saying is we are not at war with any of those places |
|
| rick [email] said at 1:46 PM 01-30-2008:
But we DID to some extent engage some on the list in a belligerent manner. As I said before, sanctions are necessarily a step towards war but they may facilitate the process. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:03 PM 01-29-2008:
also what i said was:
"it would be cool if we were still embargoing them instead of trying to rebuild their country on our dime. my dime!"
not exactly the same as what your version of what i said implies. |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:09 PM 01-29-2008:
But since I feel the embargo was a significant factor in 9/11, I don't think it's cool. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:15 PM 01-29-2008:
if we spent 1/10000th of that 2 trillion on air security measures than 9/11 would not have happened, embargo or no. |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:25 PM 01-29-2008:
Had we not been over there to begin with (which cost much money), had we not been involved in propping up so many repressive regimes in the region (which cost much money), 9/11 might not have happened.
Honestly, had the airlines been in the practice of locking the cockpit doors and had an agreed-upon plan for dealing with hijacked aircraft possibly being used as missiles (which would have been an almost negligible cost) 9/11 would not likely have happened. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:35 PM 01-29-2008:
your second point is exactly what i was talking about. better training, better doors, better communications infrastructure or whatever. maybe $100 million bucks or something? maybe like $20 million. chicken feed.
as far as up propping up regimes and doing this or that... there is always something we are gonna do that makes someone mad. and always gonna be people who want to get power and press. there is no way you can say that something bad would not have happened related to something, somewhere, somewhen. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:52 PM 01-29-2008:
as far as up propping up regimes and doing this or that... there is always something we are gonna do that makes someone mad. and always gonna be people who want to get power and press. there is no way you can say that something bad would not have happened related to something, somewhere, somewhen.But as I try to make the point, with embargos, more often than not, a lot of that seems to have a bad return for us. I can see one's justification in some kinds of aid but propping up known repressive governments seems like a bad idea; it was sketchy even in the Cold War and it seems like a really bad idea nowadays when we are becoming increasingly unloved. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:39 PM 01-29-2008:
how much did the embargo cost the US rick? a total number and a per year number would be nice. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:39 PM 01-29-2008:
I dunno. But remember we had to commit troops, including pilots and aircraft to the region. This led to the Khobar Towers bombing and as I mentioned, was definitely a factor in 9/11.I also believe that an ongoing military presence in the Gulf akin to the US had in the Nineties would almost necessarily lead to some conflict. Can you imagine if the Russia and China had significant military forces tramping around the Carribean? We would balk at such a prospect! I would imagine there have been many operations done on the cheap and yet the blowback and indirect costs they have caused have been dear indeed. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:17 PM 01-30-2008:
considering the strategic importance of the region, i cannot imagine we would ever willing remove all troops from the whole area. |
|
| rick [email] said at 1:48 PM 01-30-2008:
Perhaps.But once again, it is a serious ommission that there is no real discussion about the US' role with regards to its military, foreign aid and foreign relations. Many in that region see their own governments as just part of a satrapy of the US. And certainly some of the governments (such as Egypt and Jordan) are in large part propped up by the US. |
 | brianbibbly [email] said at 4:50 PM 01-29-2008:
I want to embargo Brandon's very satisfying cock on my 29th birthday. |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:13 PM 01-29-2008:
I want Milky to put up his choice of 5 most important hip hop albums and then see what everyone else picks.
I am also voting to maintain an embargo against Brandon's aggression and his hiding of contraband. |
 | milky [email] said at 8:00 PM 01-29-2008:
You really gonna sweat me on this, eh?
I need a few days. Not the easiest thing to do. |
slick rick said at 8:08 PM 01-29-2008:
naw, I just wanted more than just a long-winded sociopolitical scrum to come out of this post. |
|
| milky [email] said at 8:25 PM 01-29-2008:
Golden Era Only: (the number one spot is my only top spot)
1- Public Enemy, "It Takes A Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back"
2- LL Cool J, "Mama Said Knock You Out."
3- Main Source, "Breaking Atoms" tied with Ultramagnetic MCs, "The Four Horsemen"
4- A Tribe Called Quest, "Low End Theory"
5- Del tha Funkee Homosapien, "Del tha Funkee Homosapien" tied Pete Rock & CL Smooth, "Mecca and the Soul Brother"
This is not 5 but technically 7. If you wanted 10, I'd give you 12, but let's continue anyway.
6- Gang Starr, "No More Mr. Nice Guy"
7- Eric B. & Rakim, "Follow the Leader"
8- The Beastie Boys, "Paul's Boutique"
This is where it gets tricky. Technically, I'm going over the limit.
9- Nas, "Illmatic"
10- 3rd Bass, "The Cactus Album" tied De La Soul, "3 Feet High and Rising"
My 10 turned into 13.
It had to be like that. I could do twenty and leave it alone. But there's some common threads here.
Who can spot them and see how this list makes sense, and why I left off who I left off?
This is no magic gem list. It's something any College Radio DJ could come up with.
Favorite hip-hop singles? Well, we should all do a top 20 on that, including Silver and Golden Age. |
|
| milky [email] said at 8:32 PM 01-29-2008:
5 - Del's album is "I Wish My Brother George Was Here," and I can't believe I fucked that up. |
|
| rick [email] said at 10:25 PM 01-29-2008:
Thanks, m'man |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:28 AM 01-30-2008:
1) Public Enemy, "Fear of A Black Planet"
2) De La Soul, "3 Feet High And Rising"
3) Meat Beat Manifesto, "Storm the Studio"
4) DJ Shadow, "Endtroducing..."
5) N.W.A., "Straight Outta Compton" |
|
| milky [email] said at 12:07 PM 01-30-2008:
Choosing between the two major Public Enemy albums was tough. I chose the earlier of the two because of the sheer sonic impact and memorable lyrics. "Fear Of A Black Planet" was PE at the apex, at the height of what they could do, sound-wise.
But it was tough.
I left out "Storm the Studio" not because I consider it hip-hop, I just thought others would find it a stretch.
"Endtroducing...," because it was post G-Funk, post Golden-Era.
"Straight Outta Compton"? I really dislike what it led to. NWA, I'll always be a production fan, and some songs and lyrics are going to crack me up, but too many people took those studio gangstas for reality, which is sad.
"Detox" was supposed to be the answer to that, but I have no idea what Dre is actually doing versus what people say he's doing.
I didn't know what to do with Eminem. I shrugged it off...if he's going to put out his best album, it hasn't happened yet. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 12:32 PM 01-30-2008:
yeah, i can see "storm the studio" as a stretch; but i'm not a purist and i LOVE that album.
i thought "endtroducing..." was really more of a stretch to put on this list; but i think hip hop tends to neglect it's musical innovations, which are many.
as for "straight outta compton"; you know if we were hanging out and i put on that album you'd admit to it's greatness.
i might have put paul's boutique on this list, but i saw you had already mentioned it so i decided it would be redundant to put it on mine. |
|
| art [email] said at 5:11 PM 01-29-2008:
Do Yats have Tats? Do they Rap? Do Yats Rap about Tats of Iraq? About Tits of Iraq? Does Brandon's very satisfying cock have mulleted pubic hair? What could be so wrong about the back of something be as to be so unspeakable? What is this unspeakable thing?
The world awaits answers |
|
| brandon [email] said at 11:34 AM 01-30-2008:
Yats do have tats. Younger Yats like Kid Rock. The tits of Iraq lie mostly in Karkuk. Billetted never mulleted. Perhaps you've heard of the goats.ex? I couldn't say, it's ineffable. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 5:40 PM 01-29-2008:
more on the embargo-
before iraq i got in several arguments with people who advocated lifting the embargo.
my point was that yes, iraq would get money if we lifted the embargo and kids and people would get better medical care and live; -BUT sadam would be able to pursue wmds. the embargo, though bad; worked. and, it was a MUCH better plan than invading; which has turned out to be VERY BAD for all parties involved except for extreme sadists. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:57 PM 01-29-2008:
The only problem with this was the indefinite nature of the embargo. How long should we do it? How long should the Iraqis live in such a woeful setting? At some point, the status quo gets untenable (which is another reason I feel the embargo helped get us into war).Iraq had WMDs in the Eighties and used them both against the Kurds and against the Iranians. How is it that the risk posed then seemed acceptable? |
|
| kiche [email] said at 9:47 PM 01-29-2008:
The only problem with this was the indefinite nature of the embargo.
you are aware that we have indefinite embargos against cuba and north korea?
How long should the Iraqis live in such a woeful setting?
you are aware that our embargo against cuba is really awful (and spiteful). also, should we lift are embargo against north korea? we've done much worse damage to their society. people are starving in north korea. should we end the embargo on north korea? knowing full well that kim jong il is trying to get nukes? and that he shoots a missile over japan every few months?
At some point, the status quo gets untenable (which is another reason I feel the embargo helped get us into war).
ok, rick, the war and the embargo have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. nada. the embargo, the war and 9/11 are three seperate things which are only incidently related. 9/11 not carried out by iraq. the embargo was successfuly keeping wmds out of sadam's hands. bush claimed that we went to war because sadam had wmds; but that was a ruse. it was for oil. we attacked iraq unprovoked, remember?
Iraq had WMDs in the Eighties and used them both against the Kurds and against the Iranians. How is it that the risk posed then seemed acceptable?
well i don't think it was; but you must be suffering from amnesia. let me refresh your memory. our government, under reagan, gave them to him. they were given to him to use against iran. our government turned a blind eye towards him using them against the kurds because they wanted him to stay in power. i know you think this is some sort of crazy conspiracy theory, but there even exists video of rumsfeld shaking sadam's hand when reagan gave him the chemical weapons.
how do you not know this? |
|
| rick [email] said at 11:28 PM 01-29-2008:
you are aware that we have indefinite embargos against cuba and north korea?And to paraphrase the august and venerable sage, Dr. Phil: how's it working out for us? Our shunning Cuba just makes us look grotesquely arbitrary and ineffectual (though I have heard a lot of Europeans and Canadians say they like the idea of an American-free tropical paradise). You admit as much. North Korea does not seem to have been effected much at all. But I do take issue at the idea that the famines in North Korea are our fault; much more blame ought to lie at the feet of the leadership there. Their situation is not much different than that of Cuba but Cuba, though poor, is nowhere near as bad as that of the Hermit Kingdom. I'm not saying we should end the embargo against North Korea but I am saying that its ability to force policy change with North Korea's leadership is very minimal. And we should at least consider other options instead of just having our own Dear Leader call the other Dear Leader a "pygmy;" by my standards, our Dear Leader is a "pygmy." ok, rick, the war and the embargo have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. nada. the embargo, the war and 9/11 are three seperate things which are only incidently related. 9/11 not carried out by iraq. the embargo was successfuly keeping wmds out of sadam's hands. bush claimed that we went to war because sadam had wmds; but that was a ruse. it was for oil. we attacked iraq unprovoked, remember? I don't buy this; by keeping forces in the region engaged on Iraq we provided ostensibly a pretext. Moreover, as I mentioned before with Josh, a major reason Osama bin Laden attacked us was because our troops were in Saudi Arabia. What were they doing there? Enforcing the sanctions. well i don't think it was; but you must be suffering from amnesia. let me refresh your memory. our government, under reagan, gave them to him. they were given to him to use against iran. our government turned a blind eye towards him using them against the kurds because they wanted him to stay in power. i know you think this is some sort of crazy conspiracy theory, but there even exists video of rumsfeld shaking sadam's hand when reagan gave him the chemical weapons. I know all of this and it just goes to bolster my point: not only we did we not find the idea of Saddam Hussein having WMDs problematic, we went so far as to actually arm him with them. Now, I would certainly agree with you that that was a bad idea but somehow between the end of the Iran-Iraq War and Spring of 2003, Scuds did not slam into Waveland, Mississippi. Seriously, am I the only one who remembers the Cold War when the US faced an enemy that really could have , if it wanted to, blow us up? (Even assuming every single missile missed its target there would still be nuclear winter to deal with; however, this could have made for some very interesting live action role-playing). |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:40 AM 01-30-2008:
i do think that our embargo against cuba is stupid and pointless at this point.
but, i'm sorry. we should not be helping north korea economically. kim jong il is crazy. if he gets nukes, he may use them.
I'm not saying we should end the embargo against North Korea but I am saying that its ability to force policy change with North Korea's leadership is very minimal.
BUT, it does keep dear leader from gaining a serious military foothold.
as for 9/11, bin laden has given a laundry list of reasons why he attacked us. sanctions on iraq and stationing troops in saudi arabia are just two reasons. the reason he seems to put the most emphasis on is our shelling of civilians during the lebanese civil war back in the '80s. even if we weren't in saudi arabia and weren't sanctioning iraq; bin laden would have more than enough grist to fuel his hatred of us in the islamic world.
as for saddam and wmds; we shouldn't have given them to him under reagan. it was very sketchy decision at the time for him to do this. he was called out on it on the national stage. the driving force behind this decision was a hatred of iran that blinded many people to the long term ramifications of this action. |
|
| rick [email] said at 2:01 PM 01-30-2008:
but, i'm sorry. we should not be helping north korea economically. kim jong il is crazy. if he gets nukes, he may use them.Kiche, North Korea has already tested a nuclear device. Despite the isolation from the rest of the world, it managed to do so. I don't see how any country with at least some nuclear facilities and the will could not create a nuclear weapon; the technology is over sixty years old.
BUT, it does keep dear leader from gaining a serious military foothold.
No, his inability to strengthen himself militarily has more to do with his own person than with any embargo. Once again, Korea is not so different than Cuba and yet I would rather live in Cuba than in North Korea. China will see to it that North Korea will never completely collapse as they would rather not have a border with South Korea but they are not going to prop up North Korea much more than that. A few times, there has been a 'problem' with the oil supply (for which China is the main supplier) whenever North Korea has gotten particularly recalcitrant. as for 9/11, bin laden has given a laundry list of reasons why he attacked us. sanctions on iraq and stationing troops in saudi arabia are just two reasons. the reason he seems to put the most emphasis on is our shelling of civilians during the lebanese civil war back in the '80s. even if we weren't in saudi arabia and weren't sanctioning iraq; bin laden would have more than enough grist to fuel his hatred of us in the islamic world. The only one I think could be described as >The main reason was the stationing of US troops on Saudi soil. Remember, bin Laden himself offered to one of the Saudi princes to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq (a secular entity). The prince asked him what he would fight with and bin Laden answered, "with Faith." The head of the what used to be the bin Laden group in the CIA has corroborated as much. as for saddam and wmds; we shouldn't have given them to him under reagan. it was very sketchy decision at the time for him to do this. he was called out on it on the national stage. the driving force behind this decision was a hatred of iran that blinded many people to the long term ramifications of this action. Sure, it was a terrible idea. But trying to solve a gruesome mistake with another gruesome mistake (and then follow up with an even more gruesome mistake) is not the way to go about things. |
 | john [email] said at 8:24 PM 01-29-2008:
Rick, hit up some of the Metarie parades and you'll see some Yats flashing and drinking Budweisers. Maybe you can snag a drunk one. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 11:33 PM 01-29-2008:
I thought I would tie together some concepts here:
Like Hero to Leander
Across the Bosphorus
Halabja your pus like
Saddam loved the Kurds
Coalition Labia!
You going to explode -
No Muslim clit can embargo
My warfighting chode. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 12:20 AM 01-30-2008:
What happened to all the girls who used to post here? Remember when girls posted to Killoggs? I do. |
 | myriam [email] said at 9:16 AM 01-30-2008:
I didn't think it was possible but I am actually sick of the political talk! |
|
| brandon [email] said at 9:50 AM 01-30-2008:
Yeah, but there are so many other things we could be talking about. I placed a pretty open ended menu in the original post. For instance, we could be talking about "tits" or "my cock".
Or posting SFW pictures of the same. |
|
| rick [email] said at 2:04 PM 01-30-2008:
Well there is a discussion of canonical hip hop albums above. And frou-frou beer below.It seems like no one ever wants to talk about anything though besides middling films like Juno which I did not have especially strong feelings for. So to give you something different here is a poem: A Cat in an Empty Apartment
Wislawa Szymborska
Dying--you wouldn't do that to a cat.
For what is a cat to do
in an empty apartment?
Climb up the walls?
Brush up against the furniture?
Nothing here seems changed,
and yet something has changed.
Nothing has been moved,
and yet there's more room.
And in the evenings the lamp is not on.
One hears footsteps on the stairs,
but they're not the same.
Neither is the hand
that puts a fish on the plate.
Something here isn't starting
at its usual time.
Something here isn't happening
as it should.
Somebody has been here and has been,
and then has suddenly disappeared
and now is stubbornly absent.
Frederica_krueger_the_beautifulAll the closets have been scanned
and all the shelves run through.
Slipping under the carpet and checking came to nothing.
The rule has even been broken and all the papers scattered.
What else is there to do?
Sleep and wait.
Just let him come back,
let him show up.
Then he'll find out
that you don't do that to a cat.
Going toward him
faking reluctance,
slowly,
on very offended paws.
And no jumping, purring at first. |
|
| rick [email] said at 12:49 AM 01-30-2008:
Now, that McCain has won Florida, I believe he will be the GOP nominee for president. Which is too bad; he is the worst candidate of them all in my opinion.
I had a pretty good stout recently called Dorothy Goodbody. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 1:12 AM 01-30-2008:
Calandro's sells store-made salads for $2 from their Deli. I like them and get one every once in a while. I stopped and bought one after class tonight, and saw that they have an entire shopping basket full of Christmas themed stouts at half-price.
Which, considering, is a fucking cheap way to stock up on some stouts. Did I mention to you that I had the nest espresso stout? It was good. |
|
| rick [email] said at 1:17 AM 01-30-2008:
I had the chipotle ale by Rogue; not sure I can recommend it though, it tasted weird. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:37 PM 01-30-2008:
In no particular order:
why did we need to control iraq?
Srsly. In 6 years, we've never heard a coherent, rational answer from our leadership. I still remember the days-long double-take I had in reaction to the idea that we were going there. It just made no sense to me. It still doesn't. In 6 years, other than killing Saddam Hussein, not a single goal has been reached in confronting the Axis of Evil (tm). NK got her nukes. Iran has hers. Bin Laden is still alive. The Taliban limits the government's control in Afghanistan to cities and military bases. Pakistan, though an ally still, is reverting to an ever-more authoritarian government. And Boutros Boutros Ghali still has not been brought to justice. Still, we broke it. I guess we should clean it up. But not to the point that we break our economy borrowing money for the war effort. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:40 PM 01-30-2008:
I've always thought it was more of an Irish derived accent. But that's just because the majority of Yat's I know are filthy Irish. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:42 PM 01-30-2008:
Dude. Don't apologize, I join you in your love of rough-edged women, El-Caminos, AND Journey.
In fact, the last gf I had was perfect, like actually. We'd been seeing each for a while... she was sarcastic, horny, pretty, and had a good sense of style.
And I was miserable.
Here she was, just, fucking perfect. A genuinely good person who will never, ever, short of some personal tragedy, struggle in life. For some fucked up reason she thought I was the greatest, she was ready for cohabitation, kids, she was even going to let me by without the whole marriage thing - which I'm fundamentally opposed to. And I fucking hated it. Couldn't stand it. Squirmed the whole time. There's no pleasure in merely being adored. I'd rather be exuberantly tolerated
I don't know what my problem is. I want a woman who's going to make fun of my bad haircut, come to bed drunk, and remind me how stupid I am on a daily basis, I want someone with tattoos, mental and physical, odd obsessions, imperfect but not terrible teeth, and a history of substance usage. I want someone that's probably going to sleep around, who smokes in the house, reads trash fiction, knows more about music than I do, someone who isn't particularly concerned about the finer things in life, because the finer things in life are all horseshit anyway. I want someone who I can say "Fuck you, bitch" to and reasonably expect a punch in the face, or a more artful string of rebutting profanities - not a sudden swell of tears. I want someone who doesn't want to go everywhere I want to go, who doesn't just want to "be together". Cause, fuck that, I don't like anyone that much. I can't see how anyone could or would?
I have this good friend up North who just got out from under the same sort of relationship: oppressive adoration, we were exchanging notes, and man, we were like separated twins (which is sick, because we used to fuck) but at the same time, it makes sense. Of all the ex's, she's of a handful that I parted with amicably, and with whom I never really fought. And it's partially because our expectations lined up so neatly... It's a little more than "friends with benefits" but we were talking about terminal arrangements, and here's this girl saying everything I want to hear, about maintaining respective distance, instead of packing yourself into some dyspeptic, suburban nightmare, where day in day out all of your face time is with some haggard, farting monkey that used to turn you on decades ago.
Relationships are expensive. Relationships wear you out. I'd rather be punched in the face (or punch someone in the face, than hear or say "I love you" regardless of actual, corresponding emotional states.
The woman I love, she'll show up at my house one day, maybe a week since I've seen her. She'll have a bike thrown in the back of her El Camino. We'll sit over coffee and a cigarette. She'll tell me that she's going somewhere, hell, anywhere, and it might be a while, can I feed her cat? She'll rub my fucked up knee, but not in a way that makes me wince. By the next Friday, I'll probably get a post card or a skull she found in the mail, or maybe a picture. She'll come back around, smelling like other dudes and poison, and we'll drive down to the beach, and swim out to the pilings, the ones covered with blade-sharp barnacles. And maybe I'll catch her snoring. And maybe she'll stay the night when I'm cooking. And maybe she'll fuck some guy in New Mexico. But if I tell her to leave, she couldn't, and If I asked her to stay, she would not. But she'll always come back. Because I'd be her stone of love, and we'd have something, not anyone else's, just our our kind of esoteric faith. You see, rick, my dream girl can't help it. She's no dilettante, but, even if our relationship took a fall, even if we went our separate ways (and were perhaps worlds apart) I'd never be alright without her, and, she'd never be able to accomodate the loss of this barest of structures nor survive a fall into a world whose mandate was solely anyway you want it. I've fucked up a lot of relationships, and I've been a lot of places I probably shouldn't have, but I've not stopped believing in it. One day it'll work for me. It just won't be with a Yat.
I'm just prejudiced against Yats. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:43 PM 01-30-2008:
You can put that scenario out there tonight, and I guarantee you that some gum-mouthed yat-rock with vagina, an el-c and a penchant for Steve Perry will take you up. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:46 PM 01-30-2008:
Yat: "yammer yammer yammer yip yip yip"
Frog: (stabbing yat with a sharpened statue of Saint Joseph, until the yat's face becomes a mere pattern of bloody slits) I sees how you "makes ze grocuhrees" now zat you should be dead, yes?"
yat: (nearly lifeless, mumbles something about Catholicism as her hands blindly continue to reach for government assistance money to clench.)
That's the fight I want to see. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:47 PM 01-30-2008:
Fucking yats. There's not a accent that bugs the shit out of me more. I'd rather listen to the most country, corn-pone accent than listen to a fucking yat. I hope the French woman stabs her. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:47 PM 01-30-2008:
It's from So Long...
It thought it was funny.
I'd fuck the shit out of Glau Summer
I'd also Summer out the Shit of Glau Fuck.
Dancers are funny in bed. You'd think they'd be all like "Bend me!" but the majority of the one's I've had are all like "Don't touch! Avian bone Syndrome!" Well, recently.
There were two dancers that I had impure congress with who were exceptionally lithe and energetic. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:48 PM 01-30-2008:
NPR's summary
LOC Record of Bills in Committee I'm pretty sure this is what it looked like going into Ways and Means. I haven't found a story that explicitly mentions the co-sponsors, the bill number or whatever, but this talks about the business expensing rules, the caps, and the amending of particular parts of the tax code that would have effect individuals in a way consistent with what the stories are reporting
If you don't feel like plunging through the Congressional Review, the Tax Code, and the US Code to figure out wtf they're referring to, the AP has this nice summary they've attached to one of their syndicated stories:
A Closer Look
TAX REBATES
-- Rebates would go to about 116 million families.
-- Expected to cost about $150 billion.
-- Most tax filers would get $600 to $1,200.
-- Minimum check: $300.
-- Low-income earners who made at least $3,000 would get $300.
-- Families with children would get at least $300 per child.
-- Full rebate limited to individuals earning $75,000 or less.
-- Couples earning $150,000 or less would also get full rebate.
-- Partial rebate for individuals $75,000 to $87,000.
-- Partial rebate for couples $150,000 to $174,000.
HOUSING
-- More subprime mortgage holders could refinance into federally insured loans.
-- Limit on FHA loans could rise to as high as $729,750 in some areas.
-- One-year boost of cap on loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.
BUSINESS INCENTIVES
-- Business tax write-offs: bonus depreciation, more generous expensing rules.
THE TIMETABLE
-- House Speaker Pelosi: act on deal "at the earliest date."
-- First rebates could begin going out in May.
-- Most people could have their rebate by July.
-- Bush: agreement "has the right set of policies and is the right size."
There are several other associated bills aimed at relief for people currently in trouble with their mortgages and some other associated corporate hand-holding, But the meat of what they're calling the economic stimulus package for us is there.
Note: the Senate still hasn't approved this shiz. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 4:49 PM 01-30-2008:
Who am I kidding? That succinctly describes most of the subsequent ones, too. | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
