And that's not all... but in the cafeteria inside the Parliament Building during lunch time.

You have to pass through metal detectors, sniffing-dogs, and SEVERAL pat-downs just to get inside the Green Zone, what to talk of the Parliament Building.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6548337.stm

2-3 MPs dead, and 15 people injured.

Note: Female suicide bomber is what I heard on the BBC just now. The link doesn't seem to mention it yet.

Bush thinks terrorism [WHICH HE STIRRED UP (the terrorsim in Iraq)] can be defeated, well he is stupid.

If you stir a hornet's nest, there is no way to calm down the hornets ever again, except for destroying the whole nest.

Maybe this should go in that Iraq was better under Saddam thread, but a suicide bombing inside the Green Zone is unprecedented.

And a few days ago, there was another suicide bombing by a woman.

Now what? How can this be defeated?

4/12/2007 9:35:42 AM

but its as safe as a flea market in indiana

4/12/2007 9:40:12 AM

I heard they have been using pregnant women recently.

4/12/2007 9:48:30 AM

from the other thread:

McCain told reporters: “that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed ‘walk freely’ in some areas of Baghdad.”

Sounds great John. But.....

Quote :

"He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.”"

and was wearing a vest.

4/12/2007 9:52:42 AM

Quote :

"but a suicide bombing inside the Green Zone is unprecedented."

i'm not sure that it is. At least, attacks have occurred in the Green Zone, i don't know about suicide bombs. Rare, but not unprecedented

4/12/2007 10:07:34 AM

Quote :

"Bush thinks terrorism [WHICH HE STIRRED UP (the terrorsim in Iraq)] can be defeated, well he is stupid. If you stir a hornet's nest, there is no way to calm down the hornets ever again, except for destroying the whole nest."

I'm pretty sure we (the US) stirred up the hornet's nest a long long long time ago, waaaaaay before Bush was even in the picture.

Quote :

"Now what? How can this be defeated?"

The same way racism was "defeated". We all know racism was never really "defeated" (just look at the news headlines today). But, it can be eased with a large cup of perseverance, a spoonful of hope, and a dash of compassion.

4/12/2007 10:09:54 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure we (the US) stirred up the hornet's nest a long long long time ago, waaaaaay before Bush was even in the picture."

yes, you are right:

1) asassinating iran's elected prime minister
2) installing the shah of iran, who was a terrible human rights abuser
3) deposing iraq's king (or was it elected ruler... can't remember)
4) installing saddam
5) egging on saddam during the iran-iraq war and being complicit in his use of chemical weapons in iran

sure, you are right.

but none of that was an active factor anymore in the past few years before the war, except for the fact that, well, saddam was in power.

but, the hornets were calm.

Quote :

"But, it can be eased with a large cup of perseverance, a spoonful of hope, and a dash of compassion. "

again, you are right. but is that what bush is doing in iraq? and anyway, they method you suggested is a long-term method. it can't give results in just a few years, and is non-implementable, actively speaking. it just happens.

but until that time, there is no solution, least of all a military one.

and more poignantly, WHY create a problem, and then hope for the solution you mentioned to take effect? sure, with saddam in power, the seas weren't exactly calm, but they weren't turbulent like now either. and he was actually able to calm the seas by force or by will, whereas Bush can't do it even with a lot of firepower.


[Edited on April 12, 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2007 10:15:59 AM

Quote :

"and more poignantly, WHY create a problem, and then hope for the solution you mentioned to take effect? sure, with saddam in power, the seas weren't exactly calm, but they weren't turbulent like now either. and he was actually able to calm the seas by force or by will, whereas Bush can't do it even with a lot of firepower."

You can complain, whine, and eat all the cheese and crackers along with it.

And what's this about a lot of firepower??? Right now it's more like a fly swatter. Come on, atleast give your beekeepers some better equipment. You also have to realize you aren't just fighting one big hornet's nest, you are fighting multiple hornet's nests (terrorist groups from Iran, Saudia, etc...). You can wipe out one nest (Al-Zarqawi), but the rest will keep coming.

Three options:
1) You can stay and fight with a dinky fly swatter. (our current method)
2) You can equip your beekeepers with better equipment. (Bush's proposed method)
3) You can run away from the hornets nest. But, be warned, hornets are relentless chasers. You better run far faaaaaar away and hide for a long looooong time. (democratic method)

Of course, I don't have any ideas. I sit in a cubicle all day. I have no clue what's going on in Iraq aside from the news stories. I'm just going along with the crowd.

4/12/2007 10:52:36 AM

I'm not advocating the position, but I think it bears mentioning that we are, in terms of materiel and destructive capacity, perfectly capable of fixing the problem. Sure, it would be at a high cost -- too high of a cost for me, unless I'm overestimating what it would take by quite a lot. But resolve is entirely the deciding factor here.

4/12/2007 11:02:49 AM

Quote :

"in terms of materiel and destructive capacity, perfectly capable of fixing the problem."

i.e. carpet bombing?

that only works when you are fighting a uniformed camped force.

not when the people you are fighting are evenly mixed-in with the rest of the population. i have seen so many confession/interrogation videos of captured insurgents, and these are all regular people: shopkeepers, garbage collectors, laborers, etc. they look the same as the victims of [suicide] bombings, dress the same, and live in the same neighbourhoods.

so what are you gonna do, carpet bomb a million people to kill 10,000?

and you think that would work? that would lead to WW3: Western world against Muslim world.

4/12/2007 11:09:46 AM

^And that is why we are fighting a losing battle. We operate on the basis of wartime "rules", while they carry out total war.

I liken it to us fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

4/12/2007 11:19:58 AM

0EPII1, you clearly misunderstand.

Carpet bombing a million people to kill 10,000 is exactly what I'm saying we could do. Certainly not even close to saying that we should do it, I still just want to point out that it is only because we lack the resolve -- and I'm using that term in a very specific capacity here -- to make a desert and call it peace that we will probably lose this war.

Quote :

"that would lead to WW3: Western world against Muslim world."

Precisely. Of course I'm also saying that I'm pretty sure we'd win that one.

------

Look, obviously I'm not advocating such a course of action...it just frequently people seem to be confusing "can't win" with "won't win." At the current level such destruction would be far and away an unacceptably disproportionate response to what is ultimately the minor threat of terrorism. But I think there's some merit in everyone on both sides remembering that there is a theoretical limit to what we will accept before our resolve gets ratcheted up that far.

4/12/2007 11:22:59 AM

would WW3 actually be such a bad fight if it was western vs muslim world?

4/12/2007 11:27:39 AM

It would be horrifically bloody and require massive atrocities on our part, so yes.

4/12/2007 11:28:59 AM

Quote :

"massive atrocities on our part"

exactly which war doesn't?

4/12/2007 11:30:56 AM

Yes yes, it sounds very profound and progressive to say things like that, but you know full well what is meant by "atrocities."

4/12/2007 12:17:55 PM

Up until Persian Gulf, war was basically indiscriminately bombing enemy countries, civilians and all. Another World War implies that's what we'd be doing.

We obviously can't do that (we can, but we absolutely shouldn't) for various reasons.

4/12/2007 12:28:55 PM

Quote :

"Three options: 1) You can stay and fight with a dinky fly swatter. (our current method) 2) You can equip your beekeepers with better equipment. (Bush's proposed method) 3) You can run away from the hornets nest. But, be warned, hornets are relentless chasers. You better run far faaaaaar away and hide for a long looooong time. (democratic method)"

By better equipment do you mean refusing to actually equip and train them? Or do you mean Bush's plan of refusing to let them rest and resupply?

#3 isnt the Democratic position. Its Dick Cheney's bullshit lies about the Democratic position.

4/12/2007 1:25:18 PM

Quote :

"#3 isnt the Democratic position. Its Dick Cheney's bullshit lies about the Democratic position."

Then would you clarify what the current Democratic position is? I'm being serious about this question, because I thought their position was a withdrawal from Iraq.

4/12/2007 2:16:39 PM

not immediate withdrawl, but some sort of tangible time table as opposed to "we'll leave when the job is done." bullshit.

4/12/2007 2:20:04 PM

Quote :

"some sort of tangible time table as opposed to "we'll leave when the job is done.""

Sounds cowardly and illogical.

- Cowardly in that you started something but don't want to finish it. And don't even give me the "It was Bush's fault". Americans were totally behind him when the war first started. We need to hold onto some sense of integrity.

Theoretical Analogy #1
If my little brother told me that we should beat up a kid because he was picking on him, and we went and beat up the kid, but then found out that the kid didn't really pick on him. Barring the fact that beating up another kid for any reason is wrong. Are we still not at fault for beating up the kid? Is it not our responsibility to fix things? Or are we going to point fingers at someone else because they didn't tell us the truth?

- Illogical because you're waiting for things to get a little better then pull out? Why not just pull out in the first place? What if things do get better? Do you still pull out? On the flipside, if you're not really waiting for things to get better, then why not just pull out? Why waste more time there?

Theoretical Analogy #2
You're fending off hornets at their nest. You say, "Let's see, I'll try and fend off the hornets for an extra 30 seconds. If things look better after that, then I'll make a mad dash for safety. If it looks worse, then I'll run anyways." You failed to see that while you waited 30 seconds fooling around, more hornets have arrived on the scene. You would have been better off just running away like a coward in the first place.

These analogies are just for illustration purposes, but the concepts still apply.

[Edited on April 12, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ?]

4/12/2007 2:58:23 PM

Quote :

"Americans were totally behind him when the war first started"

I don't speak for everyone, but I think a large portion of citizens (including myself) were NOT behind him going into Iraq.....Afganistan i can agree with, but not Iraq.


Its just like Vietnam.....we wouldn't pull out until it was painfully obvious that we were gaining no ground, just losing more and more soldiers for nothing. I bet alot of those soldiers in Iraq now wouldn't agree with your "cowardly" assessment.

Pride's a bitch.

[Edited on April 12, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : o]

4/12/2007 3:04:05 PM

Quote :

"Theoretical Analogy #2 You're fending off hornets at their nest. You say, "Let's see, I'll try and fend off the hornets for an extra 30 seconds. If things look better after that, then I'll make a mad dash for safety. If it looks worse, then I'll run anyways." You failed to see that while you waited 30 seconds fooling around, more hornets have arrived on the scene. You would have been better off just running away like a coward in the first place. These analogies are just for illustration purposes, but the concepts still apply."

How do you define hornets being "worse" or "better"?

If you leave, the hornets go back to being hornets in their nest, happy with their queen.

If you stay, they remain aggressive, and will continue attacking until they die. It seems, with hornets, your best bet is to always run. Unless you live in magic fairly land where the hornets recognize your innate superiority, and become your humble, willing hornet-slaves.

4/12/2007 3:05:05 PM

Quote :

"recognize your innate superiority, and become your humble, willing hornet-slaves"

pheromones!!!!!! that's the answer

4/12/2007 3:06:36 PM

Quote :

" Theoretical Analogy #1 If my little brother told me that we should beat up a kid because he was picking on him, and we went and beat up the kid, but then found out that the kid didn't really pick on him. Barring the fact that beating up another kid for any reason is wrong. Are we still not at fault for beating up the kid? Is it not our responsibility to fix things? Or are we going to point fingers at someone else because they didn't tell us the truth?"

In this situation, it's more likely the kid you beat up is not going to trust you, and is not going to want you to help him, instead running to his mom to take care of his wounds, while forever scorning you AND your brother for beating him up.

Your best bet is an apology, and to sugar him up... or to kill him and his family.

4/12/2007 3:11:52 PM

Quote :

"Now what? How can this be defeated?"

IT CANT!! the only option is to surrender and let them have thier way

4/12/2007 3:26:21 PM

Quote :

"I don't speak for everyone, but I think a large portion of citizens (including myself) were NOT behind him going into Iraq.....Afganistan i can agree with, but not Iraq. ... I bet alot of those soldiers in Iraq now wouldn't agree with your "cowardly" assessment. "

According to many reports, I believe some soldiers said something to the degree of, "I hope my comrade's deaths are not going to be in vain." Meaning, they'd rather finish the job than tuck their tails and run. That's just want the media said. But, I'm just a cubicle dweller, I don't know what's really going on over there.

Quote :

"If you leave, the hornets go back to being hornets in their nest, happy with their queen."

You kind of forgot the part about the hornets chasing you around and around and around and around the house then finally stinging you in the butt before you actually make it to safety (like in one of them Charlie Chaplin black and white movies).

Quote :

"Your best bet is an apology, and to sugar him up... or to kill him and his family."

I agree. Send thousands of pounds of Hershey bars to Iraq. Then nuke the place and have a new Chocolate New Orleans built in Iraq's place.

[Edited on April 12, 2007 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2007 3:41:37 PM

^ Those must be the Africanized hornets.

4/12/2007 4:28:11 PM

Quote :

"You kind of forgot the part about the hornets chasing you around and around and around and around the house then finally stinging you in the butt before you actually make it to safety "

if you leave you're likely to get stung a few times, yes, but things will eventually calm down......if you hang around after you see the swarm is 100x meaner and more numerous than you thought (not to mention coming from hives all around), your friends have left, and you've already taken many stings, your gonna die.......slowly and painfully.

but analogies are just that.....

4/12/2007 4:51:41 PM

^^^do you have an analogy machine in your house that works a little like mad libs? or do you just pull all these out of your ass?

4/12/2007 5:10:01 PM

i went out for some hours and haven't read the responses since my last one, but damn, the hornet analogy really caught on

4/12/2007 5:44:44 PM