This Is Disgusting...

[Menno]

http://www.kucinich.us/dk.html

It's shit like this that pisses me off, using images of soldiers that died (and their PRIVATE funerals) for political gain. I don't care whether you agree with the war or not, this is pure exploitation. He not only exploits their name (which is bad enough), but he also exploits their unit as well. It's reasons such as this that most people in the Armed Forces vote Republican. Democrats, for some odd reason, believe everyone in the military is a Jessica Lynch-type individual who is somehow "forced" into the military and don't want to be there. Because even when the American left tries to be understanding and sympathetic towards military personnel and veterans, they too often wind up being insufferably condescending instead. I happen to know the family of one of those guys on that little list of his, and I can tell you what they told me; that he WANTED to be there more than anything. Yet now his name is being paraded and used dishonorably for some dickwad's campaign. Dennis Kucinich...FUCK YOU you beady-eyed little bastard!

[Pialojo]

http://www.kucinich.us/dk.html

I don't care whether you agree with the war or not, this is pure exploitation.

Word.

This is the same kind of bullshit that convinced Americans to go to war in the first place, so you can hardly blame him for trying but that's a pretty shitty piece of propaganda.

[iohkus]

as far as asthetics of flash, it was alright

but i didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the pictures, those stats were powerful on their own

especially 23 iraqi civillians dead / US GI

[Zombie Jebus]

I think they're illegally using the music from the game neocron too.
bastards

[Franz Schubert]

Democrats, for some odd reason, believe everyone in the military is a Jessica Lynch-type individual who is somehow "forced" into the military and don't want to be there.

No I don't.

[EvoG]

Hehe, and I'm trying to figure out their math...it says 1.99 soldiers die a day, yet at the end, it claims that in the 5 days it took to make that animation, 50 soldiers have died...um, huh?

Tasteless...he should burn...as Menno put it, these soliders want to be there, and this tacky politician paints them out to be soldiers that have died for nothing...I've very sure their loved ones want to hear that from this shit head.

[Spazmo]

They ought to have listed Interplay in the companies towards the end.

[Ghetto Goose]

I didn't realise it was a candidate's site until the end. Besides the fact that it was plugging another president, it was pretty good.

[OnTheBounce]

Hehe, and I'm trying to figure out their math...it says 1.99 soldiers die a day, yet at the end, it claims that in the 5 days it took to make that animation, 50 soldiers have died...um, huh?

I'd say it's back to school for EvoG. He apparently didn't get what averages are all about. While the mean rate of death may be 1.99 soldiers/day, that doesn't mean that in a five day period 9.95 soldiers died, just like no one in suburban America actually has 2.5 kids. If that flash was put together during the last days of November there very well could have been 50 soldier killed in those days. Sorry, not a valid criticism.

Was it used for shock effect? You bet. Was it tasteless? Yes, but no more so than any other form of mud-slinging, which is pretty much what either side of the fence engages in when it comes to elections.

I don't think people should be bitching so much about this guy, but rather that political advertisements have shifted away from "I'm the man/woman/person for the job!" to "The other guy's such a low-life you need to vote for me!" Notice that the add says nothing about the candidate's qualifications for the job, just that Bush is a rich man who will stop at nothing to make himself and his cronies richer. (Which sounds uncomfortably close to the truth for both Bush and others like Wolfowitz and Cheney.)

But like Pialojo said, this is basically in the same vein as what got the invasion launched in the first place. "Saddam gassed his own people!" and all sorts of other things were all that the White House would go on about. Yet, that position defies the US' earlier findings. But I suppose Bush and his cohorts would like to have their cake and eat it, too. (Meaning that Saddam gassed his own people when it serves the US' interests, but he didn't when it didn't serve those same interests.)

Are US troops dying for nothing? I don't know. All I know is that I've never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold, and I've seen more than a couple of those.

Is this war politically motivated (i.e. in the name of corporations)? Of course it is. Never mind any of the public rhetoric, wars are invariably politically motivated. To believe anything else is to misunderstand what wars are all about. This doesn't matter whether we're talking about Vietnam, WWII or the First Punic War. If Iraq didn't have something the US wanted the US would go along ignoring the humanitarian issues like it does in literally dozens of other areas. The same goes for any other nation on the face of this little insignificant speck of dust.

Do soldiers want to be there? Some do, some don't. I think it's just as unfair to characterize soldiers one-and-all as patriots as it is to say that they are the downtrodden masses who only sought solace in the arms of the military's trough of benefits. The reality is a bit more complex. Like me, who joined for lots of reasons. I'd just had a very serious relationship go sour, I was in need of money for school, I wanted to play w/neat-o toys, and follow in my father's footsteps. I didn't shy away from combat, but I wasn't all that anxious to get my "baptism in fire", either. I guess that would make my case fodder for either side, with their willingness to selectively pass on relevant data.

At any rate, that's my $0.02.

OTB

[atoga]

The link didn't work for me (it loaded a page that said 'Stay Tuned....' and the link to the homepage didn't work) but regardless, that's some sick stuff. It seems the definition of 'military heroism' has gone down the crapper and then been further exploited.

Ah, fuck it, there's worse stuff to be worried about.

[Nightkin244]

well, for the iraqi civ/US GI stat theres hundreds of Civilians running around car bombings and shit. It says that "X" many died, dozens die in these car bombings and iraqis walkin around with bombs strapped to them.

[iohkus]

huh?

[EvoG]

Hehe, and I'm trying to figure out their math...it says 1.99 soldiers die a day, yet at the end, it claims that in the 5 days it took to make that animation, 50 soldiers have died...um, huh?

I'd say it's back to school for EvoG. He apparently didn't get what averages are all about. While the mean rate of death may be 1.99 soldiers/day, that doesn't mean that in a five day period 9.95 soldiers died, just like no one in suburban America actually has 2.5 kids. If that flash was put together during the last days of November there very well could have been 50 soldier killed in those days. Sorry, not a valid criticism.

*sigh* Yes OTB, I have no idea what averages are *rubs temples* ...rather, as you pointed out thats "probably" what was meant, but the way it was pieced together was poor. Though your razor intellect grasped the intention quickly, in the context of the animation, when you toss out a statistic, you usually stick by it rather than making it irrelevant by then tossing out a number you pick from the air.


Bah

Cheers

[Menno]

I'd say it's back to school for EvoG. He apparently didn't get what averages are all about. While the mean rate of death may be 1.99 soldiers/day, that doesn't mean that in a five day period 9.95 soldiers died, just like no one in suburban America actually has 2.5 kids. If that flash was put together during the last days of November there very well could have been 50 soldier killed in those days. Sorry, not a valid criticism.

But the flip-side holds true also; during some weeks only about 5-6 soldier's died. Mr. Kucinich's stat is skewed toward the more violent recent weeks. I could say "In the time it took me to type up this post, 30,000 Americans have died". Could this be true? Maybe it's possible, but if I don't have facts to state otherwise I have no basis to make that claim; I can't state this just because of a statistic over a two-week period. Over the past several days far fewer than 10 have died, let alone 50.

Was it used for shock effect? You bet. Was it tasteless? Yes, but no more so than any other form of mud-slinging, which is pretty much what either side of the fence engages in when it comes to elections.

You are absolutely right. However, I didn't object to the fact that he talked about the loss of life in Iraq or that he disagreed with the Bush administration; I do object however to the use of their names and images from their private funerals. Even the media rarely stooped that low to show those images, because they are private after all. My point was how disgusting it was that their names are associated with someone's political campaign for pure political gain.

I don't think people should be bitching so much about this guy, but rather that political advertisements have shifted away from "I'm the man/woman/person for the job!" to "The other guy's such a low-life you need to vote for me!" Notice that the add says nothing about the candidate's qualifications for the job, just that Bush is a rich man who will stop at nothing to make himself and his cronies richer. (Which sounds uncomfortably close to the truth for both Bush and others like Wolfowitz and Cheney.)

Again, you hit the nail right on the head. It's all bashing against one guy instead of what they stand for (this was very obvious during the recent Democrat Debate, in which Republicans have done in the previous debates also). About the Republican cronies becoming richer, I don't exactly see Democrats not interested in making themselves richer either though. However, of all the Democrats making comments/disagreements about the war in Iraq, Mr. Kucinich's remarks and advertisements tend to go way out of line (he seems to think we have over 150,000 UN troops just itching to help us out in Iraq), which is why I'm expressing my dismay specifically at him.

But like Pialojo said, this is basically in the same vein as what got the invasion launched in the first place. "Saddam gassed his own people!" and all sorts of other things were all that the White House would go on about. Yet, that position defies the US' earlier findings. But I suppose Bush and his cohorts would like to have their cake and eat it, too. (Meaning that Saddam gassed his own people when it serves the US' interests, but he didn't when it didn't serve those same interests.)

True, but I don't recall Bush making commericals showing the names of all who died with images of their family crying. There were some commercials shortly after 9/11 that showed the names of those who died along with their mourning families, but to my recollection none were made by the Bush administration; also its worth mentioning that most of the families approved of that anyway.

The incident at Halabja was most likely done by the Iranians (as evidence such as the link you provided shows), however there are a few other instances where Hussein has used gas on his own people (Halabja was the most "famous" example he was incorrectly blamed for). We're talking about a guy who used to bury children and men alive to save money on not feeding them as well as other well-documented atrocities. It's like saying Ted Bundy wasn't really guilty of 28 murders, but really 27, and he was incorrectly blamed for one. He's still a purely evil son of a bitch regardless.

Are US troops dying for nothing? I don't know. All I know is that I've never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold, and I've seen more than a couple of those.

No soldier dies for nothing...though he may have died for causes he didn't wish to fight for.

Is this war politically motivated (i.e. in the name of corporations)? Of course it is. Never mind any of the public rhetoric, wars are invariably politically motivated. To believe anything else is to misunderstand what wars are all about. This doesn't matter whether we're talking about Vietnam, WWII or the First Punic War. If Iraq didn't have something the US wanted the US would go along ignoring the humanitarian issues like it does in literally dozens of other areas. The same goes for any other nation on the face of this little insignificant speck of dust.

I disagree with our President on numerous issues, but I think he's undertaking this war in a correct mindset (much to half of the world's dismay). The "war on terrorism" is a war of idealogy, much like Communism was. Terrorism is breed upon hatred, and it isn't necessarily the hatred you may think. For example, their hatred isn't based upon how involved the United States government was involved in the Middle-East during the Cold War (in fact most of them barely know about it), but instead it's based upon fundamental racist hatred. Things like "Westerners (specifically Americans, but it applies to all Westerners if the need arises) are rapists"; "Americans want to conquer the world and make all of you convert to Christianity"; "It is your destiny to become rightful rulers of the world under the banner of Islam"; "We don't hate the Americans, we just wish to free them from the grip the Zionists hold upon them!" etc. This is being pounded into the minds of a large majority of people in the Middle-Eastern region.

This isn't necessarily about Jews (but they're history's tried and true scapegoat), it isn't really about poverty (most of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families, as did Osama Bin Ladin), nor is it about past acts against Muslims the United States has done. The United States has done far worse to the Vietnemese, yet you don't see them boarding our planes and trying to fly them into buildings. What terrorism is based on is pure unadulterated base hatred for ALL Westerners. Terrorists, despite the rhetoric they spout, don't fight for real ideals...they fight for power. This is evident especially with attacks against native Afghanis and Iraqis. This hatred cannot be broken easily. You cannot break these barriers by shaking a leader's hand; You cannot break these barriers by giving economic aid to their people; Nor can you break these barriers by putting your head in the sand and turning the other way. The Ancient Greeks had a phrase called "Trefomai arthro thirio" (or something along those lines, my greek is extremely rusty) that meant "Feeding the Monster".

The "Monster" is the people, they hunger for victories, either tactical, military, or morale achievements. When they get those victories, they grow stronger, growing more confident of themselves. If you don't "feed" it with those achievements, it will all fall apart and collapse under it's own weight. This saying can be transplanted to the Middle-East very easily. The "Monster" is the semi-large segment of the Arab population that despises the Western world. From the US backing down for not enforcing the numerous resolutions against Saddam, from the US Cole, the embassy bombings during the 1980's and 1990's, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and even down in Somalia, all this time was "feeding" this monster. This segment of the Arab population believe you are all cowards, that you won't fight for yourselves, that you'll cower under a rock or hide behind your technology. Why? Because you're all talk and no action. They know this, and its makes them stronger, while making you weaker. They laugh at you when they attack you, not defending yourselves at all. Every time they do something and don't get any retribution from the US, it gives them all the morale they need to continue. You think if we leave them alone it'll stop? Would a thief stop stealing if you keep letting him get away with it? I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but it won't; the monster wants to be fed, and it will be. You either put a stop to it now, or it grows so large that it will consume you. They can't be bargained with, they can't be reasoned with, and they won't stop until they accomplish their goals.

I agree with OTB though that this war had pretty much nothing to do with humanitarian reasons initially, though that's been pushed by the administration lately mainly due to the fact how vehimently opposed the Democrats have been against the war (though a majority voted for it) and the reconstruction phase; he needs to find something to salvage his political campaign with that no one in their right mind can disagree upon.

It isn't a war against all Muslims/Arabs, and I'm not some raging psychopath that's screaming for Muslim blood because of 9/11. But I do know what will happen if the status quo doesn't change drastically. There will be more terrorist attacks, undoubtedly some in America again no matter how successful the "war on terror" is. What happens when the next terrorist attack or two kills 20,000-30,000 civilians? [as was the original intention of the WTC attacks; luckily the buildings held up longer than they anticipated] Want to know what will happen? Americans will cry out for blood and revenge in a much more viscious tone that was set during 9/11, and someone will come along politically to give it to them and allow them to channel that pure hatred. I don't want to indiscriminantly kill Arabs, nor do I want my nation to do so. But this will happen if the world (not just the United States) doesn't take real action to stop this threat before it only increases.

So why Iraq, and not any other Arab nation? Because it's like killing 4 birds with one stone. Iraq, in my opinion, is the beacon of hope for the Arab world. You can say perhaps I'm being a romantic idealist about that statement, and maybe you're right. But if were to stand by the Iraqis, and can make Iraq work, and work well by giving it a strong economy, it would dramatically change the Middle East entirely. Iran would be forced to reform unless they want their younger generation to emigrate to a successful Iraq. Then perhaps Syria, and maybe even Saudi Arabia, would undergo more democratic reforms which will further deteriorate the base of fundamental terrorism. Will this all work? Maybe, maybe not. The US and Japananese turned an island with virtually minute amounts of natural resources into an economic powerhouse. Who knows if it'll work out that way with Iraq. But seeing the alternative, isnt' it worth a shot?

The point of this long as hell post isn't to say OTB is wrong or that he doesn't know what he's talking about, far from it. He is no more right or wrong than I am. Haha, and we're both stubborn old bastards (even though I'm 22, my body feels like it's 35) so I doubt we'll be changing each other's mind anytime soon. I know my viewpoint, especially here, is definately in the minority. I thought I'd just express it so others who are bored out of their minds reading it can develop their own view on which path is right or wrong. It'll be decades before we see if what the United States did was right or wrong, and only history can judge it at this point since it's far too early to tell.

What if we would have taken the same approach with Nazi Germany? It would have most likely have been strangled in it's cradle and died. But the world did nothing. All the concessions, all the morale victories, all the slap in the faces of Britain, the United States and France, fed this monster that was the German people. They began believing themselves, believing they were superior, and the monster fed and fed, until the world finally did something, and by then it was too late.

Fast forward to 2003.

The monster is feeding...

Which path of action do you choose?

[iohkus]

sorry Menno, but why would Iran gas SYMPATHETIC kurds when they were in a WAR against Iraq from 1980-1988?

It's quite the opposite, Iraq used a variety of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers during the war including mustard gas, cyanide, nerve gase among others... UN intervened and protested but ofcourse to no avail, the Iraqi cases of chemical weapon use during the 8 year war are well documented, but i'd like to see your link about Iran gasing civillians 10 miles from their border like that of Halabja

this was a town of 70,000 in revolt against Iraq's Baath party during the war and the revolt was suppressed by Sadam, not Iran

and Iranians emmigrating to Iraq? hahaha.... yeah that'll be the day... For the last couple of decades, Iraqi, Kurdish, and Afghan families have been flooding Iran's borders

[Menno]

sorry Menno, but why would Iran gas SYMPATHETIC kurds when they were in a WAR against Iraq from 1980-1988?

It's quite the opposite, Iraq used a variety of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers during the war including mustard gas among others... UN intervened and protested but ofcourse to no avail, the Iraqi cases of chemical weapon use during the 8 year war are well documented, but i'd like to see your link about Iran gasing civillians 10 miles from there border like that of Halabja

For the last couple of decades, Iraqi, Kurdish, and Afghan families have been flooding Iran's borders

Actually OTB hit this one right on the head and he's right. Iran was the perpetrator of the gas attack in Halabja. The reason why Iraq was (incorrectly) blamed for it was because the Iranians were the first one on the scene (obviously) when UN/Human Rights investigators arrived, and promptly pointed the finger at Iraq, in which they completely bought. I'm in no way saying Hussein never used any poison gas; it's just that he's incorrectly blamed for this incident that he's most cited to be blamed for.

The exact reason for the gas attack escapes my memory (I believe they mistakingly believed that there were Iraqis in the village, though I could be wrong).

Believe it or not, a couple of thousand of Iranians have emigrated to Iraq after the overthrow of Hussein already. In fact, the Ayatollah's grandson, with his followers, left for Iraq. Shia's are the majority religion in Iraq (as in Iran), so it wouldn't be inconceivable that Iranians would leave to go to Iraq once it's marginally re-developed (along with having a greater degree of personal freedoms). Mass immigration isn't happening now of course, but if Iraq gets on its feet there's no doubt in my mind that many Iranians would leave for Iraq.

Take a good look at those ethnic groups that have fled to Iran; some Afghanis left to escape the Taliban, Kurds left Iraq/Turkey to escape persecution, and Iraqi's left to escape Hussein. They left for Iran, because even though Iran wasn't exactly freedom, it was better than where they were. The same reason for what would be occuring when Iraq gets on its feet; people will leave to better their lives.

[iohkus]

well hardcore shiites leaving iran makes sense since most middleclass Iranian families are pretty much atheist these days, there really is no need for the clerics to be in Iran and most of the shiite conservatives are hated by the iranian people anyway

and also the 50,000 or so iraqi nationals who were anti-baath party militants and who had been assembling in iran for the last decade or so probably have by now infilitrated iraq, some no doubt are taking part in attacks against US forces, so that's a form of emmigration i guess

the shiites are leaving for iraq to fill the void left by Sadam's secular gov't, now you see masses of iraqis taking to the streets and celebrating their faiths with exiled shiite leaders

if the iranian people had their way, iran would be a more prosperous turkey like country it seems

edit: iran wasting precious chem agents, if they had any, on "a few iraqi soldiers" hiding in a kurdish city 10 miles from their border is still highly unlikely

why waste newly developed chem agents when they could easily bomb the city 10 miles off their border with missiles and cheaper more plentiful conventional weapons? still too sketchy

[Grey Fil]

Another powerful reason for the migrations trough the irano-iraquian border are ethnic and racial. Most of the xiites in Iraq are iranians (culturaly) of the indo-european family, while the sunni are mainly arabs (semitic). What this means is that the xiites on both sides of the border feel they have more in common then with the sunni, migration of iranians to Iraq is now mainly to the areas with a xiite majority and it probably is not for "innocent" reasons. One can easily imagine that if the coalition forces where to widthraw now that the xiites with strong iranian support would make a strong bid for power to install a government very similar to the one in Iran and maybe even a unification.

The Iranian gasing at Halabja is not out of the question, because the Kurdish nation extends into both sides of the border and none of the states wants an independent Kurdistan anywhere because it would create the risk of loosing territory to this state for all countries in the region.

[Radoteur]

But Menno, when we start fighting back and stop feeding the monster, it just gives them an excuse to fight back. We'll never win now will we?
Of course, I agree that this was the best course of action for America. Instead of letting Iraq grow into North Korea 2, we take 'em out now and possibly get a nice democracy going and some free real estate to protect American interests. If everything works out, which might happen, however unlikely, we'll have a prosperous democratic Iraq with American bases in it.

I don't think it's going to be as easy as Germany and Japan, though. Iraq is a big mess compared to those countries. Yes, they were probably considered pretty big messes when they were being rebuilt, but the Iraq situation really is complex. There's all the different groups, ideologies clashing, the war on terror/holy war being waged in Iraq. Although, from what I've heard, the Iraqi people are relatively sophisticated, and there are quite a few that are western educated, which should help. Problem is that the more secular people more similar to American culture are Sunnis. Sunnis had most to lose from Saddam getting out of power, so the advantage that America had with them is either lost or at least dampened.

I think the only way is to convince the ones that aren't trying to kill us into not killing us and killing the ones that are trying to kill us. The education will probably difficult and many will probably decry it as propaganda, but anything to work against the propaganda they've already been fed should help. But there's a chance it will backfire.

I hope this made sense. It's 2:30am and I'm tired.

[Franz Schubert]

Instead of letting Iraq grow into North Korea 2, we take 'em out now and possibly get a nice democracy going

You make funny jokes, ha ha ha.