DIHQ's Celebrity Boxing Poll

- DIHQ'S CELEBRITY BOXING POLL -> Prvt JSK....er...I mean Sgt Skull on Eye-Rack

Start A New Topic | Reply

Post Info

TOPIC: Prvt JSK....er...I mean Sgt Skull on Eye-Rack

Posted By: legion Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 750	Prvt JSK....er...I mean Sgt Skull on Eye-Rack Sgt Skull analysis of the big quagmire Tongue Tangled link: Go here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_090803_plan.html Click on something: Tell me what you find.
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 741	That's funny; Wasn't Sgt. Skull the mASScot of.... .........sadDAMN Hussein, and his two sons, Stupid-day and Kook-say Hussein ? ? ? Advice for Loudmouth Legion: Tell Tom Chittum (alias Sgt. Skull) and the rest of those far-left, liberal 'Net reporters to INTERVIEW THESE PEOPLE (the Iraqi Interim Governing Council Members and Ministers) and report back to us what THEY think, instead of having us all believe HIS subjective, biased (or, in Sgt. Skull's case, maybe that should be, biASSed) analysis: Fair enough for you ? ? ? (In his case, since he's relying on communication with Beavis and Butthead, I WILL have to spoon-feed him the direct link.) (Then, after he and the other 'Net reporters do that, you can't accuse of me or anyone else who support the President of "spinning" the news.) Believe me, the "Prison Planet" has spun its ass on its own axis long enough.) http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Governing_Council Waiting to read what the "mASScot" uncovers. :-)
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 740	(P.S. to Loudmouth Legion: Try and do a simple... ......."Copy & Paste" this time to link over, if that's not asking too much for your contemplative mind to do.) I promise next time I'll give you your spoon-fed HTML link directly. ;-)
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 735	(And, furthermore, to show you I am NOT biased.... .........I'll even start the ball rolling by reproducing and giving you the New York Times' full article (from its Web paper for today) about a report on the scheduled upcoming visit by some of these people to the U.S.) (I would have you directly link over, Loudmouth Legion, but you have to subscribe with Username and Password to gain access to the paper's contents, first; so this time I'll spare you the mental challenge and just give it to you.) RECONSTRUCTION Iraqi Leaders to Press Congress for Control Over Rebuilding By PATRICK E. TYLER AGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 21 In a 6,000-mile end run around American and British occupation authorities, leaders from the Iraqi Governing Council say they will go to Congress this week to argue that American taxpayers could save billions of dollars on Iraq's reconstruction by granting sovereignty more rapidly to the council, the 25-member interim government here. In interviews, the Iraqi leaders said they planned to tell Congress about how the staff of L. Paul Bremer III, the American occupation administrator, sends its laundry to Kuwait, how it costs $20,000 a day to feed the Americans at Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, how American contractors charge large premiums for working in Iraq and how, across the board, the overhead from supporting and protecting the large American and British presence here is less efficient than granting direct aid to Iraqi ministries that operate at a fraction of the cost. "The Americans are spending money here to secure themselves at a rate that is two to three times what they are spending to secure the Iraqi people," said Ahmad al-Barak, a human rights lawyer and a member of the council. "It would be better for us if we would be in charge of how to spend this money and, of course, they could monitor how it is spent." He estimated that in some cases the savings could be a factor of 10. "Where they spend $1 billion, we would spend $100 million," he said. In the spirit of demonstrating such savings, the Governing Council this month canceled the $5,000-a-day contract that Mr. Bremer had arranged to feed the 25-member body and its staff and found a cheaper supplier. Mr. Barak said he did not know the cost of the new contract. President Bush has asked Congress for $87 billion to finance military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year. Of that amount $20.3 billion is dedicated to Iraq's reconstruction. The council's maneuver to bypass Mr. Bremer, who has flown back to Washington for meetings this week, seemed bound to irritate and embarrass him. Council members said Mr. Bremer was not told in advance of the council's plans to send representatives to Washington. Mr. Bremer has said the council is not yet ready to take on more governing responsibilities. He was unavailable for comment tonight, but his spokesman here, Nabeel Khoury, said Mr. Bremer would be answering questions in Washington "about what we have been doing with the money we have" and would be explaining how the occupation authority would spend the $20.3 billion the White House has requested. The council's end run reflects a political struggle between occupiers and the occupied that Iraqi officials say is inevitable and, so far, has not undermined the otherwise close working relationship that the council maintains with Mr. Bremer and his staff. But the good will is wearing thin as the interim Iraqi leaders, most of them from the opposition groups that helped persuade the Bush administration to topple Saddam Hussein, become increasingly frustrated with the deteriorating security in the country and the impatient expectations of Iraqis to see some fruits of what the United States calls their liberation. "To proceed, we need a new political consensus among the United States, the coalition and the Governing Council itself," said Iyad Alawi, a council member who will take over the rotating presidency of the governing body next month. For that reason, he said, the delegation is being sent to Washington to seek support in Congress for a more rapid transfer of sovereignty, budget resources and security responsibilities to Iraqis. Mr. Alawi was one of the five former opposition leaders who met privately in northern Iraq last week to formulate a proposal that would call for American troops to return gradually to their bases in Iraq and turn over the day-to-day policing of the country to a national Iraqi security force under the Ministry of Interior. The force would be drawn from the militia forces, but also from local tribes and police forces tailored to the security requirements of each part of the country, according to officials who attended the meeting. One member of the delegation headed to Washington, Ahmad Chalabi, this month's president of the council, said the group would press Congress to support a proposed United Nations mandate that would grant sovereignty to the current interim government before a new Iraqi constitution is written and before national elections are held. "We don't want to antagonize the United States in any way, shape or form," Mr. Chalabi said before he departed this weekend. But at the same time, he said, the daily attacks on American troops, accidental shootings of Iraqis and an overall sense of instability threatens to undermine American support for a long-term commitment to the emergence of a democratic state in Iraq. "If we get sovereignty, the first thing we will do is ask the Americans to stay," he said. Also headed to Washington was Adnan Pachachi, who had unsuccessfully sought to persuade Secretary of State Colin L. Powell during a meeting in Geneva this month to endorse the council's bid for a new United Nations resolution ending the occupation and turning over sovereignty in the next few months. Mr. Pachachi then took his draft elsewhere in Europe, where he found greater support among the French and Germans, who opposed the American invasion of Iraq. Though Bush administration officials were said by Iraqi leaders to resent their lobbying efforts, the Iraqis point out that President Jacques Chirac of France has modified his earlier proposal to turn over power in a matter of weeks something Mr. Powell dismissed as unworkable to a matter of months. Missing from the delegation to Washington will be Akila al-Hashemi, who is recovering from a gunshot wound suffered in an assassination attempt on Saturday.
Posted By: legion Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 723	RE: thanks Tongue Tangled... Hey, whattaya know? I guess everything is going just peachy keen in Eye-Rack then, eh Tongue Tangled? Apparently, contrary to all the unpatriotic critics, Freedumb and Dumbocracy are proceeding just as planned by the War Dept. The ragheads are showering your Imperial Legions with gratitude for their "liberation" from the forces of Dr Evil, and rose petals cover the roads to Bagdhad. Everything's fine, now get back to work. You got 87 billion to pay off fixing all the stuff you just blew up. That's a good Stepford lemming, just do as you're told and don't think too much. The Gubbermint is your friend.
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 717	Loudmouth Legion, when you're dealing with........ ........a country that has one of the OLDEST histories on earth (4000 YEARS or more), staying a matter of MONTHS to get the country going in the RIGHT direction in the 21ST CENTURY isn't asking TOO much. [By comparison, "toddler" 'Murka (220+ formal yrs. old), and "infant" Canada (130+ formal yrs. old), don't have to cope with all that historical "baggage".] I agree (and, if it's any consolation to you and the others, which it should be) that the sooner the U.S.A. gets out of there (and Afghanistan), the better, but, contrary to what your opinions of obfuscating facts would have one believe, one probably CAN hold one's breath and see this happen sooner rather than later; translation: the 'Murkins over there ARE NO Beavis-and-Butthead's running the show (sub-translation: they DO know what the hell they're doing), and the 'Murkin people know damn well enough than to let this Iraqi occupation continue forever and turn into a quagmire. As far as 87 billion for reconstruction goes..........well, I have to (and I admit I hate doing it, but I at least call a spade a spade) confess, no, we don't have 87 billion, don't have 77, or 67, or 57, or even 7 billion (translation: yup, for Christ's sake, we ARE broke ! ! !). THAT'S what the Iraqi oil (as soon as it begins to flow again NORMALLY) is going to eventually PAY FOR. Full control and sovereignty for the Iraqi's is ON ITS WAY, AND WILL ARRIVE ON TIME, without any more delay than necessary. Nobody's gonna drag this out like an endless summer {or Bush will be a one-term President, and his SUCCESSOR will get 'Murka out [gee ! ! !--come to think of it, that's why VOTING (something YOU should do in YOUR Canadian elections) every 4 yrs. for President DOES give the current occupant of the White House the "right" incentive for following the majority will of the 'Murkin people ! ! !]}. Believe me, when we DO finally get out of there, I'll send you free plane tickets for Air Canada so you and Sgt. Skull can fly to Baghdad and go take a swim in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (Hell, even the lemmings would go with ya'.) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Posted By: Viking Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 696	Ummm... [As far as 87 billion for reconstruction goes..........well, I have to (and I admit I hate doing it, but I at least call a spade a spade) confess, no, we don't have 87 billion, don't have 77, or 67, or 57, or even 7 billion (translation: yup, for Christ's sake, we ARE broke ! ! !).]...T-100 Actually we're not broke, or even close to being broke. With a $6 trillion U.S. economy, $87 billion is but a drop in the bucket. [THAT'S what the Iraqi oil (as soon as it begins to flow again NORMALLY) is going to eventually PAY FOR.]...T-100 Well no actually. At full capacity, the Eye-raky oil fields can only realistically produce about $2-$3 billion a month. Far less than the estimated $57-$60 billion a month that's needed. As usual, the 'Merican taxpayers will foot the majority of the bill. That hegemony thingy can be very expensive you know.
Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Sep 22, 2003 Views: 693	RE: Prof. Viking... ...as the teacher of remedial economics 101, could you kindly place legion under your wings? The boy doesn' understand macro or micro economics but his heart is in the right place! atf
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 678	Viking, I hear ya', but let's look at this........ .......from a "where's-the-money-comin'-from" angle (which is really what matters in the long run). You have to understand the difference between Gross National Product (GNP, what you're referring to), and "balancing a check book". The total current U.S. GNP (the est. "dollar" value of all goods and services in the country at any given time) is today approx. 9.4 (not 6) trillion. If, on the other hand, despite the "dollar" value of the economy as a whole, you don't have enough revenue coming in now (or, won't have, in the foreseeable future), to pay your current (or upcoming) debts, that means you're going to have to go FURTHER into debt, despite the overall "dollar" value of your "household". You just don't go to the Feds and tell them to convert the "dollar" value of the entire (or, portion thereof) economy into "dollars" for paying the bills--it just doesn't work that way (but it sure would be great and solve the problem if it did). True, the Federal Government always has tax dollars coming in and proceeds from borrowing, [and, since it has the authority (unlike counterfeiters) AND ability to print currency and stamp out coins, never has to actually worry about "going broke"]. On the other hand, if you have a projected Annual Deficit (amount in the Federal Budget of spending beyond revenue) of approx. $400-to-$500 billion, and a TOTAL, cumulative Federal Debt so far of approx. 6.7 trillion, for all practical reasons, you really are considered "broke", because the only way you're going to be able to pay your bills (including re-paying what you PREVIOUSLY borrowed from years before) is by MORE borrowing. Translation: For practical (not theoretical) reasons, that DOES mean you're "broke". ;-) As far as the Iraqi flow of oil (and its revenue) goes, I think you might need to check your data just a bit: right now, it's costing us approx. one billion per week [approx. 50 billion (annualized) per year] to keep Iraq going, and reconstruction efforts have already begun. At full-blast, even if the Iraqi oil revenues do reach only 2-to-3 billion dollars per month, that should still pay for a helluva lot of reconstruction in the long term, month after month, year after year. [Hey, the Egyptians (or, more accurately, their slaves) built all those pyramids, right ? ? ?--then the Iraqi's will do THEIR re-building efforts just fine, even though there's a big difference between building pyramids and re-building 21st-century infrastructure.] You're absolutely right about that hegemony aspect; we don't need to dominate them AT ALL, and look for the "exit signs coming up at the next corner" real soon, or Bush will get his "car hijacked". ;-)
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 662	RE: Prvt JSK....er...I mean Sgt Skull on Eye-Rack Tehehehehehehahahahahabahaaaaaaa ..... Enough said. JSK
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 654	What an ASININE, PHUCKED-UP analysis.............. ...............that is, coming from someone whose brain was probably decapitated by a Scud missile as he was coming up for air after hiding submerged in the Tigris River way back in '91. It's absurd to make the analogy that this is theft of Iraqi oil revenues like someone committing theft from a shopkeeper, merchant, or other owner of individual property. Oh yeah, I also forgot, since undergoing cranial "de-Scudding", your higher intellect has since been dead (sorry). First off, we're talking about revenue from a commodity that was owned by Iraq's former NATIONAL government, NOT collectively by its PEOPLE, and that, yes, IS STILL owned by virtue of it as a NATION, has your devolved excuse-for-a-brain got that yet ? ? ? Second off, it was the IRAQI NATIONAL government, under SadDAMN Hussein, that was to blame for all this bullschit in the first place; therefore, it's no sin (and only rightful to expect) that the future oil revenues HELP PAY FOR RECONSTRUCTION, SINCE THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THIS. If, e.g., the U.S. and the U.K. had overthrown the government of a nation (does Afghanistan ring a bell in your hollow head ? ? ?) that HAD NO SOURCE of decent future income from oil exports or whatever, then it would only be appropriate for us to "Marshal Plan" the population (which we are, at least to some extent, doing right now for the Afghans). I admit Halliburton and Cheney's buddies have to be watch-dogged so nobody takes advantage; yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know that (and the International Monetary Fund, as well); yeah, yeah, yeah,................... and fnally, yeah. But as far as controlling the IMF (World Bank) goes, do I again have to remind everybody of what you look like when comtemplating such deep conclusions ? ? ? Very well; I suppose it's about time: alt="" width="307" height="400">
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 651	(Well, here we go.................)
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 641	My apologies for wasting Message Board space...... (.........have just discovered something wrong in my browser software.) At any rate, to see Loudmouth Legion in all his comtemplative glory, just go back to page 3, and scroll down to here: Does anyone know Jabroni's REAL identity ? (And just scroll on down--You can't miss it.) Truly a magnificent pose. :-) :-) :-)
Posted By: wow Posted On: Sep 23, 2003 Views: 619	RE: Prvt JSK....er...I mean Sgt Skull on Eye-Rack So Tang, were you born a dork, or is it something you grew into?
Posted By: Tangler100 Posted On: Sep 25, 2003 Views: 445	No, dip, but since you ask,................... .......and, since I've had a chance to fix my HTML/XML software so it's now working, here's that pic of Leege (and you) that you can frame and use as his (and your) screen saver: alt="Leege (or wow) in deep thought">

Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page ->