O/T: New Iraqi Towns

Now that Iraq's landscape has been re-organized, some of their towns have been renamed:

- Wherz-Myroof
- Mykamel-Izded
- Oshit-Disisabad
- Waddi-El-Izgowinon
- Pleez-Ztopdishit
- Kizz-Yerass-Goodbi
- Ikantstan-Disnomore
- Wha-Tafuk-Wazi-Tinkin
- Myturbin-Isburnin
- Imma-Dedshmuck

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

 

Carla A-G wrote:

>Now that Iraq's landscape has been re-organized, some of their towns have been renamed:
>
>- Wherz-Myroof
>- Mykamel-Izded
>- Oshit-Disisabad
>- Waddi-El-Izgowinon
>- Pleez-Ztopdishit
>- Kizz-Yerass-Goodbi
>- Ikantstan-Disnomore
>- Wha-Tafuk-Wazi-Tinkin
>- Myturbin-Isburnin
>- Imma-Dedshmuck
>
>- CA-G
>
>Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!
>
>
>
>
I keep seeing this all over the net, and it keeps dissapointing me.

We attacked the regime, not the people.

A

 

"Anthony Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I keep seeing this all over the net, and it keeps dissapointing me.
>
> We attacked the regime, not the people.

Its the first time that I saw it, and yes, I did find some humor in it...

Sorry to hear that you got disappointed again

- CA-G

Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Carla A-G wrote:
>
> >Now that Iraq's landscape has been re-organized, some of their towns have been renamed:
> >
> >- Wherz-Myroof
> >- Mykamel-Izded
> >- Oshit-Disisabad
> >- Waddi-El-Izgowinon
> >- Pleez-Ztopdishit
> >- Kizz-Yerass-Goodbi
> >- Ikantstan-Disnomore
> >- Wha-Tafuk-Wazi-Tinkin
> >- Myturbin-Isburnin
> >- Imma-Dedshmuck
> >
> >- CA-G
> >
> >Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I keep seeing this all over the net, and it keeps dissapointing me.
>
> We attacked the regime, not the people.
>
> A
>
>

And the regime was manned by super robots right.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

Carla A-G <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Anthony Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > I keep seeing this all over the net, and it keeps dissapointing me.
> >
> > We attacked the regime, not the people.
>
> Its the first time that I saw it, and yes, I did find some humor in it...
>
> Sorry to hear that you got disappointed again
>
> - CA-G
>
> Can-Am Girls Kick Ass!

I was really disappointed with the lack of humorous imagination involved.............

Shaun aRe

 

"Anthony Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> snip list>
> >
> I keep seeing this all over the net, and it keeps dissapointing me.
>
> We attacked the regime, not the people.
>
> A
>
>

It will be funny if and only if we back up our claims that we will rebuild the country. Looking at
the wonderful job we did for the people of Afghanistan (remember them? Bush doesn't seem to) I'm
not getting ready to laugh at that list. Now that we have declared Iraq ours, guess who we
appointed to run it until the Iraqis establish a government: that's right kiddies, TOMMY FRANKS,
the general who just blew it up - not the Iraqi opposition leader (an MIT grad, btw) or anyone
remotely familiar with the politics of the area or the needs of the people. And who has the first
contracts to fix the oil fields? Halliburton...Dick Cheney's company. We didn't attack any regime;
we annexed some desert property.

Chris

 

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>And the regime was manned by super robots right.
>

I'm sorry. I should clarify. I was referring to the fact that we aimed to topple the regime, not
attack the citezenry as a whole. The regime was manned by Baath party card holders. Now we get to
sort through those people and find out who was holding a card out of hard core ideology, and who was
doing it to keep themselves and their families safe.

There are no super robots.

A

 

Chris wrote:

>Now that we have declared Iraq ours, guess who we appointed to run it until the Iraqis establish a
>government: that's right kiddies, TOMMY FRANKS, the general who just blew it up - not the Iraqi
>opposition leader (an MIT grad, btw) or anyone remotely familiar with the politics of the area or
>the needs of the people.
>

Actually, General Jay Garner (Ret.) is going to be doing most of the interim planning and leading.

Chalabi hasn't been in country for more than 40 years. And had to leave Jordan in sort of a hurry
after some bank fraud allegations.

> And who has the first contracts to fix the oil fields? Halliburton...Dick Cheney's company.
>

Halliburton has taken themselves (or has been taken) out of the running for any contracts. What this
menas i that they will swoop in and grab up plenty of subcontracting gigs. A

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:25:40 GMT, Chris wrote:

> It will be funny if and only if we back up our claims that we will rebuild the country.

I don't see any hope of it being funny. Hospitals full of civilians who were in the wrong place at
the wrong time just doesn't make for good comedy.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> >And the regime was manned by super robots right.
> >
>
> I'm sorry. I should clarify. I was referring to the fact that we aimed to topple the regime, not
> attack the citezenry as a whole. The regime was manned by Baath party card holders. Now we get to
> sort through those people and find out who was holding a card out of hard core ideology, and who
> was doing it to keep themselves and their families safe.
>
> There are no super robots.
>
> A
>

That's only because Saddam keeps killing the scientists that are building his robotic body double.
Aparently in their quest for accuracy they keep putting to big a gut on him (in Saddam's opinion).
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> >Now that we have declared Iraq ours, guess who we appointed to run it until the Iraqis establish
> >a government: that's right kiddies, TOMMY FRANKS, the general who just blew it up - not the Iraqi
> >opposition leader (an MIT grad, btw) or anyone remotely familiar with the politics of the area or
> >the needs of the people.
> >
>
> Actually, General Jay Garner (Ret.) is going to be doing most of the interim planning and leading.
>
> Chalabi hasn't been in country for more than 40 years. And had to leave Jordan in sort of a hurry
> after some bank fraud allegations.
>
>
> > And who has the first contracts to fix the oil fields? Halliburton...Dick Cheney's company.
> >
>
> Halliburton has taken themselves (or has been taken) out of the running for any contracts. What
> this menas i that they will swoop in and grab up plenty of subcontracting gigs. A
>
>

See the biggest problem with this war, no lovable personalities like Stormin Norman to make us
belive the patriots are hitting SCUDs with 100% success or that 100 infants were saved this week and
are already pre enrolled in US state colleges. I swear to god whenever Brooks or Rumsfeld open their
mouth I feel compelled to say "I feel a lot of hate in this room." If they just held up a flash card
that said "Now that's a pretty f**king stupid question to ask." the briefings would go a lot faster.
Sarcasm and condescension takes so much longer to spit out.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:25:40 GMT, Chris wrote:
>
> > It will be funny if and only if we back up our claims that we will
rebuild
> > the country.
>
> I don't see any hope of it being funny. Hospitals full of civilians who were in the wrong place at
> the wrong time just doesn't make for good comedy.
>

You're right: I was only using "funny" in a snide, sarcasic sense, which always comes across well in
the written word (like right there...even if you knew it was coming, it's still a bit ambiguous).

...And it's not just civilians. Too many Americans and Brits not yet old enough to drink legally (at
least here in the US of A) are not coming home at all.

Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be found, the spin changed to the
"liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.

Chris

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:30:07 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

|Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be found, |the spin changed to
the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.

When did everyone know that no WMD would be found?

Follow up question:

Are you really as naive as your posts makes you seem to be?

 

Chris wrote:

>
> Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be found, the spin changed to
> the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
>
> Chris
>
>

The regime lost control only two days ago. How do you know weapons won't be found?

BTW: I'm sorry that the liberation of the Iraqi people upsets you.

 

"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be
found,
> the spin changed to the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
>

Ok...here's the deal.

I have more than a decade to choose where to hide a few hundred 55 gal drums. I have a land area the
size of California to hide them in. I have the resources on an entire miltary force to use.

You have 3 weeks to find those drums. And I get declare some places off limits for you.

Oh...and I get to shoot at you while you look.

Pete

 

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> I swear to god whenever Brooks or Rumsfeld open their mouth I feel compelled to say "I feel a lot
> of hate in this room." If they just held up a flash card that said "Now that's a pretty f**king
> stupid question to ask." the briefings would go a lot faster. Sarcasm and condescension takes so
> much longer to spit out.

I suspect they make the military guys check their sidearms at the door before doing those briefings.
I can't imagine how some of the reporters would leave the room alive otherwise ("uh, general - where
are you going to attack next, and when?").

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:30:07 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> |Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be
found,
> |the spin changed to the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
>
> When did everyone know that no WMD would be found?

...just before they started claiming this invasion was about the liberation of the Iraqi people. To
date, we have discovered the damning evidence of: a cosmetic factory, pesticide (at a farm, mind
you), and today, sealed uranium deposits already tagged with UN seals. If something comes up in the
future and I'm proven wrong, I'll be here to apologize and listen to the "told you so"s. Until then,
me and 210-odd countries aren't convinced (neither, for that matter, are half the populations of
countries officially supporting the war).

>
> Follow up question:
>
> Are you really as naive as your posts makes you seem to be?

"Naive" is a word used a lot as of late to describe any of us who don't think Americans are in Iraq
as a defensive or neccesary measure. Am I naive because I require proof of wrongdoing before
exacting punishment? Of course I think he's an asshole, and his people would be better off had they
never been his people at all - that in and of itself does not mean we get to essentially murder him.

I would use "naive" as an adequate word to describe people who are supporting this war - as of yet,
it is not a matter of defending our country against thiers, and it was not a matter of liberation
until after it began. It only began to be so after damning evidence would not be found - as an
effort to save face. Maybe in a year, if a fair, democratic, equitable government has been
established in Iraq and the nation's infrastructure is satisfactorily rebuilt, I will feel
differently about a "liberation." Looking at all we've done for the innocents in Afghanistan, I
don't think things bode too well for the Iraqis.

Want more naivete? The so-called "coalition of the willing" boasts less than 10 nations with any
real international clout or military power. Excepting the United States and Britain, coalition
forces in the Middle East would number exactly 3,408 - including nuclear/chemical/biologic
decontamination experts and non-combative troops. Also, nations other than the US and UK have
contributed one submarine, one warship, and one medical ship. Some countries, like the Solomon
Islands, were placed on the list of allies without thier consent, and even demanded (to no avail) to
be removed from said list. Also, most of the list consists of countries either dependent on or
desperate for US aid. Do you think Ethiopia, Eritrea, Tonga, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Rwanda,
etc., can truly assist a war, influence world politics, etc.?

I take the word naive as an insult, and by the tone of your post, it is rightfully so. I am neither
ignorant nor misinformed. I have been a professional journalist and newspaper editor: I'm familiar
with the difference between reality, fact, and what you get from FoxNews. The American media is not,
at any level, unbiased, objective, or honest - naivete is found in the trusting of mass-media
information. If you wish to disagree with my opinions on the Iraq situation, fine, have at it -
that, not lots of money, the most powerful military in history, and a belief in our own morality, is
what gives the United States its (as yet unrealized) potential for greatness. You'll be the only one
stooping to insults, however.

Remember 10 years ago Hussein was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld and he were pictured together shaking
hands at numerous state meetings - we were ALLIES against Iran. Every chemical or biologic weapon
Hussein and his government were ever proven to have was sold to them by the Untied States, in hopes
they'd use them on Iran.

Want one final piece of fun information? Only one country has ever been convicted and punished by
the UN for state-sponsored terrorism. Guess who - the United States. We were fined, and we fired a
righteous middle finger right back at the rest of the world. As of right now, it stands unpaid.

I'm done talking about this. It's a bike forum, and bikes to me represent everything good in the
world. The actions of a handful of countries in the Middle East - countries on both sides -
represent to me everything evil about our world. Dammit, if it weren't after midnight, I'd go ride
right now.

Chris (coalition stats and info taken from
http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/)

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:23:09 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

|
|"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|news:[email protected]...
|> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:30:07 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|>
|> |Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be
|found,
|> |the spin changed to the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
|>
|> When did everyone know that no WMD would be found?
|
|...just before they

When did "everyone" become "they"?

From the beginning there have been a multittude of goals given by the government.

started claiming this invasion was about the liberation |of the Iraqi people. To date, we have
discovered the damning evidence of: a |cosmetic factory, pesticide (at a farm, mind you), and today,
sealed uranium |deposits already tagged with UN seals. |If something comes up in the future and I'm
proven wrong, I'll be here to |apologize and listen to the "told you so"s. Until then, me and
210-odd |countries aren't convinced (neither, for that matter, are half the |populations of
countries officially supporting the war).

Get ready for the "I told you so's" then.

I wonder how many liberated Iraqis share your contempt?

|> Follow up question:
|>
|> Are you really as naive as your posts makes you seem to be?
|
|"Naive" is a word used a lot as of late to describe any of us who don't
|think Americans are in Iraq as a defensive or neccesary measure.

Perhaps. But in this case naive describes your wishy washy posts quite succinctly.

Am I |naive because I require proof of wrongdoing before exacting punishment?

Yes, you are naive if you think that the US governement owes you an explanation, especially if that
information is classified.

How about the proof of wrongdoing that has beenn exposed as a result of the liberation? Is that
something that you just ignore because it doesn't fit into your skewed view of the situation?

|Of course I think he's an asshole, and his people would be better off had |they never been his
people at all - that in and of itself does not mean we |get to essentially murder him.

More confirmation of your naivete.

|I would use "naive" as an adequate word to describe people who are |supporting this war - as of
yet, it is not a matter of defending our country |against thiers, and it was not a matter of
liberation until after it began. |It only began to be so after damning evidence would not be found -
as an |effort to save face.

Wow. I guess they don't have newspapers or magazines in your area. Maybe someone can help you out
and get you some back issues that contain quotes from the government, from before the operation
started, so you can educate yourself.

Maybe in a year, if a fair, democratic, equitable |government has been established in Iraq and the
nation's infrastructure is |satisfactorily rebuilt, I will feel differently about a "liberation."
|Looking at all we've done for the innocents in Afghanistan, I don't think |things bode too well
for the Iraqis.

<snip more goofiness>

|I take the word naive as an insult, and by the tone of your post, it is |rightfully so. I am
neither ignorant nor misinformed.

Your posts indicate otherwise.

|I have been a professional journalist and newspaper editor: I'm familiar |with the difference
between reality, fact, and what you get from FoxNews. |The American media is not, at any level,
unbiased, objective, or honest - |naivete is found in the trusting of mass-media information.

No argument there. I read a wide variety of sources. On the whole, American news outlets are much
less biased than their Arab counterparts.

|If you wish to disagree with my opinions on the Iraq situation, fine, have |at it - that, not lots
of money, the most powerful military in history, and |a belief in our own morality, is what gives
the United States its (as yet |unrealized) potential for greatness. You'll be the only one stooping
to |insults, however.

Stating a fact is not neccessarily an insult. The fact that you are naive is just that, a fact.

|Remember 10 years ago Hussein was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld and he were |pictured together
shaking hands at numerous state meetings - we were ALLIES |against Iran.

Are you on drugs? That is totally false.

Every chemical or biologic weapon Hussein and his government |were ever proven to have was sold to
them by the Untied States, in hopes |they'd use them on Iran.

Again, pure conjecture. To think that Iraq doesn't/didn't have the means to culture/mix their own
biological/chemical weapons is the height of naivete.

|Want one final piece of fun information?

Not if it's as silly as the rest of your speculation.

Only one country has ever been |convicted and punished by the UN for state-sponsored terrorism.
Guess who - |the United States. We were fined, and we fired a righteous middle finger |right back
at the rest of the world. As of right now, it stands unpaid.

And that makes you feel pretty good doesn't it?

 

"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be found, the spin changed to the
>"liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.

I think others covered the fact that the WMD will be found. The only other possibility is that
Saddam actually DID destroy them all, but just forgot to mention it (you were saying something about
"naive"... how naive would you have to be to believe THAT?)

While it may bother you that the emphasis was placed on liberation of the Iraqi people, has it
occurred to you that by doing so, we saved many thousands of Iraqi troops (and at least dozens
of our own)?

If we hadn't made absolutely clear we were going to take out Saddam no matter WHAT, those poor
devils would have been forced to fight to the death, knowing that they'd rather face US / UK troops
than Saddam's goons after the coalition forces left Iraq. As it is, the resistance is mainly limited
to the really hard line troops and foreign contingents from Syria, Egypt, etc. The rest of the army
just dropped their guns, boots and uniforms and melted into the background.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

Chris wrote:
> "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:30:07 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>|Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be
>
> found,
>
>>|the spin changed to the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
>>
>>When did everyone know that no WMD would be found?
>
>
> ...just before they started claiming this invasion was about the liberation of the Iraqi people.
> To date, we have discovered the damning evidence of: a cosmetic factory, pesticide (at a farm,
> mind you), and today, sealed uranium deposits already tagged with UN seals. If something comes up
> in the future and I'm proven wrong, I'll be here to apologize and listen to the "told you so"s.
> Until then, me and 210-odd countries aren't convinced (neither, for that matter, are half the
> populations of countries officially supporting the war).
>
>
>>Follow up question:
>>
>>Are you really as naive as your posts makes you seem to be?
>
>
> "Naive" is a word used a lot as of late to describe any of us who don't think Americans are in
> Iraq as a defensive or neccesary measure. Am I naive because I require proof of wrongdoing before
> exacting punishment? Of course I think he's an asshole, and his people would be better off had
> they never been his people at all - that in and of itself does not mean we get to essentially
> murder him.
>
> I would use "naive" as an adequate word to describe people who are supporting this war - as of
> yet, it is not a matter of defending our country against thiers, and it was not a matter of
> liberation until after it began. It only began to be so after damning evidence would not be found
> - as an effort to save face. Maybe in a year, if a fair, democratic, equitable government has been
> established in Iraq and the nation's infrastructure is satisfactorily rebuilt, I will feel
> differently about a "liberation." Looking at all we've done for the innocents in Afghanistan, I
> don't think things bode too well for the Iraqis.
>
> Want more naivete? The so-called "coalition of the willing" boasts less than 10 nations with any
> real international clout or military power. Excepting the United States and Britain, coalition
> forces in the Middle East would number exactly 3,408 - including nuclear/chemical/biologic
> decontamination experts and non-combative troops. Also, nations other than the US and UK have
> contributed one submarine, one warship, and one medical ship. Some countries, like the Solomon
> Islands, were placed on the list of allies without thier consent, and even demanded (to no avail)
> to be removed from said list. Also, most of the list consists of countries either dependent on or
> desperate for US aid. Do you think Ethiopia, Eritrea, Tonga, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Rwanda,
> etc., can truly assist a war, influence world politics, etc.?
>
> I take the word naive as an insult, and by the tone of your post, it is rightfully so. I am
> neither ignorant nor misinformed. I have been a professional journalist and newspaper editor: I'm
> familiar with the difference between reality, fact, and what you get from FoxNews. The American
> media is not, at any level, unbiased, objective, or honest - naivete is found in the trusting of
> mass-media information. If you wish to disagree with my opinions on the Iraq situation, fine, have
> at it - that, not lots of money, the most powerful military in history, and a belief in our own
> morality, is what gives the United States its (as yet unrealized) potential for greatness. You'll
> be the only one stooping to insults, however.
>
> Remember 10 years ago Hussein was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld and he were pictured together
> shaking hands at numerous state meetings - we were ALLIES against Iran. Every chemical or biologic
> weapon Hussein and his government were ever proven to have was sold to them by the Untied States,
> in hopes they'd use them on Iran.

10 years ago? Hussein was our friend while we were booting him out of Kuwait? Where do you get this
information? It's obvious you are totally clueless...........

>
> Want one final piece of fun information? Only one country has ever been convicted and punished by
> the UN for state-sponsored terrorism. Guess who - the United States. We were fined, and we fired a
> righteous middle finger right back at the rest of the world. As of right now, it stands unpaid.
>
> I'm done talking about this. It's a bike forum, and bikes to me represent everything good in the
> world. The actions of a handful of countries in the Middle East - countries on both sides -
> represent to me everything evil about our world. Dammit, if it weren't after midnight, I'd go ride
> right now.
>
> Chris (coalition stats and info taken from
> http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/)