Operation Iraqi Freedom Card Backs!
Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on opencode.net
Do what you want with it, I don't care. I don't claim any ownership to it in any way.
I did not -make- these. I just converted them to KDE's card format!!
Now includes hi res versions also, so you can read the names. RELAX. Have fun!
To install:
Untar this file in $KDEDIR/share/apps/carddecks/
Support-Box
Operation Iraqi Freedom Card Backs! is part of Apps, Games and Add-ons, which is supported by the following people:
Other Opera:
l1nuxh4ck3r
17 years ago
PROGRAMMING not POLITICS
Report
l1nuxh4ck3r
17 years ago
Report
SomethingWonderful
18 years ago
In response to the others who are asking why so many find it so inapropriate for people to post "pro-war" (I should say "supportive of the war") materials when it is perfectly fine to post "anti-war" (I should also say "non supportive of the war") artwork/eyecandy/whatever, the reason is very simple:
Those who are not supportive of the war in Iraq are peaceful people who want good in the world and are tired of all the killing. They want nothing to do with all the bombs and death imposed upon regular civilians and are trying to change the world for the better. The net had a big vision about ten years ago, erasing so many borders. Linux played a big part in this as well, actually. We see, obviously, how "International" Linux is compared to Windows. Just think - about half or more than half the sites I see for various Linux projects etc...they're all outside of the United States. It has a lot to do with the European Union erasing borders, the rule of law and of the Rights of Man. It is a beautiful and grand vision and that is why people are so entrenched in the idea that they cannot tolerate the viewpoint which would seemingly want to destroy all of this communal utopia - be it in the form of capitalistic source code, big corporate tax breaks, the white-washing "globalization" of all cultures and markets, and the general grey and dull business suit Wall Street attitude which has done so many bad things in the past from Slave Trading to War for profit.
That's the one side.
The other side is that, generally, all of us who support this war for any reason whatsoever are Nazis.
The Left believes that we don't have a reason at all other than a bad one; any reason we give which we puport to be altruistic, or even just generally self-defensive in nature, is either:
1) Wrong.
2) Evil.
3) Misguided.
4) A lie.
5) All of the above.
No matter what you say, or do, or think, or feel - you're wrong. I'm wrong. We're all wrong if we support the war. We are so wrong that we have to be stifled because we are the ones who have caused millennia of suffering, cruelty, evil, and vile search for lucre in this world. Nothing can justify our point of view, no matter how good we percieve it to be. Nothing. The Left will not tolerate it, just as we will not tolerate people who come out and say such crude things as "Blacks are Bad" or "Jews are Bad" or "White people are the Best" or any other such absolutely stupid nonsense which everyone here - I would sincerely hope - would think is completely wrong and insane.
While the latter point may be true, it is also true that we who support this war (and even now that it is over, still support it) see this as a good thing while the Left groups us with the rest of those ugly statements and they will give us no more heed than we would give those who state those statements above.
Of course, this is absolute bunk, trash, and balderdash.
One may support war in a just cause, as has happened several times before in history. I have many reasons to support it, and do not dismiss all wars as utterly wrong in purpose or cause. To think so would be to negate so much of human history which has been good, and done for good things - directly or indirectly as the case may be.
So, anytime you visit a site online and they chastise you for supporting this war, or the next, or even to have supported it in the past, just remember: to them, you aren't really human. You're a Nazi. You're an extremist hater who just doesn't get it.
I could go in depth into how I feel about it, but I won't. Suffice it to say that I disagree, that I think that people have a right to post "pro-Iraq War/Terrorism War" things if they want to, that the Left should recognize us as Human and that we really are just at odds over certain practical and philosophically practical approaches, and that if they don't like it...they should just shut the fuck up.
Yours,
Wowbagger
wowbagger@nerra.com
http://www.nerra.com/broadsword/
Report
0xdeadbeef
18 years ago
How hypocritical can you get?
Report
SomethingWonderful
18 years ago
2) No, I didn't really mean anything else that you implied other than: "Shut the fuck up". :) Feel free to reply all you want, but that'll still be my "freedom of speech" answer: "Shut the fuck up." :)
Sorry that you don't like it but hey! that's my freedom of expression and speech at work. Such a pity that this is offensive to you. :)
Report
0xdeadbeef
18 years ago
I for one think your views are inconsistent, and I also think that consistency is a major plus in views. I guess you can work out the rest of what I think of what you wrote from there. I'd like to say, no offense meant, but that would unfortunately be untrue.
And, just by the way, I did not tell anyone to shut up, which shows that you can't generalize the way you did - 'the Left' wanting to shut 'the Right' up. There may be some left wing guys who do so, but there are right-wingers too - think about those white power weirdos, for instance. As we're not talking about them, we're also not talking about the extreme Left; maybe you should take that into account and reconsider some of the stuff you wrote.
Report
Chris308
18 years ago
Isn't it ironic that these same people wouldn't hesitate to ask us to use our "evil" military to protect/liberate them?
After all, not a single European country has the military strength to protect their own country from a real threat. It must be scary for them to have to rely on "military welfare" from us. Maybe their hostility comes from this insecurity and feeling of inadequacy. Come to think of it, you could say they have a kind of "penis envy" for our large military.
Report
WhitePanther5000
18 years ago
Report
bonega
18 years ago
What weapons??!! You have occupied nearly the whole country and found squat( I am sure there was some weapon at a point, but nothing *really* dangerous)
If you had wanted support you should go after North Korea, they are much more of a danger. Problem is that they probably have
a small number of nuclear weapons + is in close proximity with China. Oh did I mention there is no oil there?
That Iraq would be in connection with for example Al Quiada is a completly unfounded rumor since even the cia(is that the right agency?) cannot present any evidence that is worth discussing.
Even if there is chemical weapon, is it a big deal?
History has shown us that people can be
killed quite easy with guns....
By the way, Afghanistan was liberated...
what is the status of that country now?
I do really support the toppling of Saddams regime, but it should not have happend this way.
You should hand over the control to the UN now.
Report
metrol
18 years ago
It took over 2000 inspectors more than 6 years to find anything, and only after informants came forward. It's just been slightly over 3 weeks, the bulk of which has seen heavy combat. Apparently the US military has been a wee bit occupied with little things like being shot at.
"If you had wanted support you should go after North Korea"
We are, in a similar fashion as we attempted to deal with Iraq, diplomatically. At this point we know that at least China is heavily involved with bringing a peaceful resolution there. Colin Powell has made quite clear that every possible diplomatic means will be utilized, which oddly enough includes not letting their saber rattling unnerve us.
"they are much more of a danger"
The primary concern of the US at this time is who is most likely to supply terrorist groups, which include Al Queda, with the means for mass murder in both the US and in Europe. Of the possible suppliers, Iraq hit the top of the list. Unlike N. Korea, they have put these chemical weapons to use on both the Iranians and people within Iraq itself. Their prior involvement with terrorist groups also makes them a prime candidate for far greater damage to the rest of the world.
"Oh did I mention there is no oil there?"
So far as the US is concerned, there's no oil in Iraq either. We've never purchased more than token amounts from them. If you're looking for their biggest customer, try looking to see where France has been getting dirt cheap oil during these failed sanctions. If I were Chriac, I'd never want those sanctions to end either!
If the United States wished to invade a nation to take their oil, we'd have sent troops to Venezuela years ago. As much as folks would like the world to be as simple as "war for oil", it just isn't the case.
"That Iraq would be in connection with for example Al Quiada is a completly unfounded rumor"
A live base of operations, and troops on the ground fighting alongside them is a bit more than rumor.
"Even if there is chemical weapon, is it a big deal?"
It's a huge deal. Militarily speaking, chemical weapons don't really amount to much. The US military is pretty well equipped to deal with attacks of this nature. It's the civilian population in those nations which these extremists have focused their anger upon that are under the greatest threat.
These weapons a relatively easy to transport, difficult to detect, and can provide 6 to 7 figures worth of civilian casualties if deployed correctly. A rather small group of terrorists could inflict more damage then an armed military force by utilizing these weapons.
"By the way, Afghanistan was liberated... what is the status of that country now?"
Free of the Taliban thugs that strong armed their way to power there. Slowly working to rebuild what decades of war has inflicted upon their people and the infrastructure they live in. The US, and other nations, are still in there to help support this effort so they too can join the community of nations as peaceful neighbors.
That's not to say there aren't serious issues to deal with there, or that everything is going smoothly. There are entire generations of people in that nation who have known nothing but war and hardships for the entirety of their lives.
For the US, it's one less safe haven for those who wish us harm to hide. It's also yet another nation added to the growing list that owe their freedom and liberty to the price the US has paid in blood to give them.
Report
bonega
18 years ago
Yep, that is a good argument(really, I am not being sarcastic)
But since there should be some problems hiding the manafacturing plants and it is probably quite important for pr reason to find them.( I belive some will be found, but nothing extensive)
About North Korea, it seems that there was much less diplomacy involved in the Iraq affair. You tolerate about everything from N.Korea. They do not even accept weapon inspectors and make threats now and then.
"So far as the US is concerned, there's no oil in Iraq either. We've never purchased more than token amounts from them."
No, but you have a steadily increasing oil consumption that mostly will have to come from foreign sources.
There hasn't been really any oil sales from Iraq the last decade.
(Only the UN food for iol program)
"If you're looking for their biggest customer, try looking to see where France has been getting dirt cheap oil during these failed sanctions. If I were Chriac, I'd never want those sanctions to end either!"
Good argument, France do this mostly for their own gain. But that do not make me think they are wrong.
"If the United States wished to invade a nation to take their oil, we'd have sent troops to Venezuela years ago."
Then you would have to make up some reasons to do that. Awful lot of work on the pr people.
I am quite sure your goverment really would like to exchange the Chavez regime
for something.... more suiting.
Word is that there were some US involvement in the recent coup against him.(apparently several people involved in the coup happened to be at the US embassy at the time), this I have no source for, so ignore it :)
well Chavez isn't the really the best president a country can have but..
"As much as folks would like the world to be as simple as "war for oil", it just isn't the case."
No, you are quite right.
There is more reasons for the war, but I do not think it would have happened if there wasn't any oil in the mideast.
"A live base of operations, and troops on the ground fighting alongside them is a bit more than rumor."
Is it really? Sources?
I have not seen anything like that in media. CNN said that there was report of Al quaida personal on the ground, but nothing more was said after that - rumor.
And it is not that every country know what goes on everywhere on its soil.
Lets not forget that Iraq Is not really a rich country at the moment.
"These weapons a relatively easy to transport, difficult to detect, and can provide 6 to 7 figures worth of civilian casualties if deployed correctly"
6 to 7 figures??!
We are talking 100.000 to x.000.000?
Excuse me, but you are crazy....
Maybe if you stuffed the whole of new yorks population in the subway and used a nerve gas....
"Free of the Taliban thugs that strong armed their way to power there. Slowly working to rebuild what decades of war has inflicted upon their people and the infrastructure they live in.
Maybe free from Talibans, but not thugs.... President Karhzai only controls what he can se(Kabul) the rest is at the hand of warlords.
The drug production has started up again and the US presence is to small.
By the way.... thanks for helping the muhajedin to power in afghanistan
"The US, and other nations, are still in there to help support this effort so they too can join the community of nations as peaceful neighbors."
Join the community with Iran, Pakistan and China?
True that they haven't been that aggresive lately but...
"It's also yet another nation added to the growing list that owe their freedom and liberty to the price the US has paid in blood to give them."
Not that many on the list..
I give you South Korea and maybe Afghanistan.(+ the ones I forgot which I am sure you will remind me of :)
But lets not forget that it is often the civil population that has paid the highest price.
I wonder what crazy things I have written, I easily go on rants.
Take no offence, I only enjoy discussing.
Hope you do this for fun to.
Report
metrol
18 years ago
On the point concerning your request for links about Al Quaeda's involvement in Iraq, I've only managed one story talked about today.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_flash_article.asp?FlashOID=7603
The initial report on the bases in operation was given by Colin Powell in his address to the UN Security Council which C-Span covered. A number of other reports earlier on in the war stated that Al Quaeda members were involved with the fighting in southern Iraq. I believe I picked that up from radio news reports. During the conflict I've been tracking too many sources!
Rather than go point for point, I'll close this reply on the notion of North Korea. First off, Iraq didn't allow weapons inspectors in either until they were under the direct threat of military force. This point seems to get lost on those that think the UN managed this without serious US intervention.
Iraq hit the top of the list due to a number of factors, one of which is oil I will grant you. Not Iraqi oil, but the Saudi crude which we do purchase. We buy the Saudi oil due to it's quality rather than for political reasons. It's referred to as "sweet crude" due to it's relatively clean burn with a minimum of processing. Both the conflict in 91 and the one we're seeing now are a result of our defending Saudi, not Kuwait or just to attack Iraq.
Following 91, with Saddam still in place we were not comfortable with leaving Saudi undefended from invasion. This leaves US troops stationed in the Islamic holy land. We know this is a major irritant to Arabs, and Al Queada in particular. As annoying as this situation is for both the US and the Arabs, so long as Saddam remained in power we couldn't change it.
Furthermore, the US has a legal pretext to military action in that area due to a variety of UN resolutions, the last of which of course being 1441. No such pretext exists with the situation brewing in North Korea, nor is their the direct connection to middle esatern bred violence coming our way.
North Korea also differs in the nature of their immediate neighbors. South Korea, Japan, and even China have a great deal of concern over what is going on there, and have far more sway with them. If a peaceful solution is possible (and I do believe it is) the best chance is to have those folks lead the way and have the US play a supporting role only. This is the game plan that Colin Powell laid out before a Senate hearing shortly after his first UN presentation, and it would appear to be working thus far.
I do believe you're too quick to discount the diplomatic efforts that eventually led to military force being used in Iraq. It was the US that brought this to the UN. President Bush even went so far as to show up himself to go through the UN in looking for a peaceful solution. At each and every turn of events, Iraq had a reasonable means for preventing conflict. At each opportunity they neglected to take the mulititude of "last chances" offered up.
And with that being stated, thank you again for an interesting reply that rises well above the knee jerk reactions of those that prompted me to reply to this politically charged discussion in the first place.
Report
bonega
18 years ago
I have to say the same about you.
It is really nice to have a meaningful discussion on this subject( many arguments for this or that on the internet can be pretty dumb...counting my own :)
I may not agree with you either, but I will buy you a beer if I visit the US or if you visit Sweden.
Well here comes some more points.
There isn't really much thought behind them( I am recovering after a night with a tad much wine... :)
"On the point concerning your request for links about Al Quaeda's involvement in Iraq, I've only managed one story talked about today.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_flash_article.asp?FlashOID=7603"
Well, the information is quite sparse and a bit fussy - "U.S.: *Possible* al-Qaeda base destroyed in Iraq"
But yeah, it can absolutely be true.
Though it do not have to absolutely condemn the Iraq regime - see my old point of no knowledge
(Rest assured that Saddams regime is quite bad though)
"Following 91, with Saddam still in place we were not comfortable with leaving Saudi undefended from invasion."
Iraq military have only weakened the last decade so the threat should have decreased.
But you are right that you do not really want your troops in Saudi, it poses quite a problem with your muslim relations.
Quite a good point after all.
North Korea - Yeah... I am also quite confident that this will be resolved diplomaticaly.
It just seems wrong that N.Korea is allowed to go unchecked when they are worse than Iraq on most of the points discussed.
"At each and every turn of events, Iraq had a reasonable means for preventing conflict. At each opportunity they neglected to take the mulititude of "last chances" offered up."
Let the weapon inspectors into the country again - Check
Started dismantling the missiles that was over the permited range - Check
Let spy planes fly over their territory
- Check
According to Hans Blix showing a "increased willingness to cooperation"
- Check
Make Saddam leave his post - EEEk
We shouldn't really have expected this one...
Thanks for giving your view on the situation, one can only become a better person by seeing more of the whole picture
Report
skal
18 years ago
Report
staikos
18 years ago
version 2.0 includes high res versions. You can select low res (fast), medium res (medium-fast) or high res (slow as hell, but you can read their names). I also repaired the license file.
If you don't like it, don't use it! Come on already! Go elsewhere!
Report
iPaqTux
18 years ago
Let's not be too uptight, here. IMO it would be inappropriate for this site if someone had put an anti-Saddam Hussein wallpaper, etc. but the cards are nothing more than that, a card theme. In fact, I can easily see Saddam himself using the real cards, in the same way that some people like to play with cards of nude images (i.e. because he likes them).
They carry no message other than to demonstrate the U.S. government's view of what it believes the Saddam regime was structured like.
Report
rootnuke
18 years ago
The art "blade" cuts both ways.
WTG
:-)
Report
secretmethod70
18 years ago
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5173
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4965
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4964
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4954
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4945
And then, among those FIVE submissions presenting one view, here is ONE presenting the other.
Would it e nice to not have any of these? Sure. Is that going to happen? No. There is a section for wallpapers and people put political comments in their wallpapers. This is a theme for a KDE app. Or do we want to start censoring art now? At least be consistant - if you're going to vote against one for being a political statement, vote against them all - even when you agree with them.
Report
Brandybuck
18 years ago
If you disagree with the theme's sentiment, then come right out and say so. But don't post a "I agree" comment on a anti-war theme, then turn around and post a "not KDE related" comment here. Show some consistency.
Report
Doches
18 years ago
Report
netbear
18 years ago
This discussion isn't about America or not America. And as you say this is an international page, and I guess that I have just the same right to express my opinion as you have to express yours.
I think it's OK to post cardbacks at this page you do not need to download them if you not like them. But to vote them down just becaus of the political aspect at this page which should not be political is strang but I understad that there are alot of communists at this page that not so strange but I didn't knew you suported the dictatorship of iraq.
/Björn
Report
Chris308
18 years ago
Report
Doches
18 years ago
Report
Chris308
18 years ago
If you watch only CNN this may come as a surprise to you. Remember, CNN just admitted that they have been omitting and lying about Saddam's regime for the last 12 years! Please analyze what you hear from your liberal teachers carefully. Their positions can not be validated with facts, only with untruths and slanted statements.
Ask yourself:
1) Why do they blame America first?
2) Can they give the name of a country that has accomplish more or has assisted the oppressed people of the world more?
3) Can they name a nation that has been more powerful, but has used its power so seldomly?
4) If America has imperialist intentions, why do we not take the spoils of war? (remember 1991?, we gave Kuwait their oil fields back)
5) Do they have views consistent with Karl Marx or the US consitution?
6) Ask them outright if they personally feel that socialism or dictatorships are preferable to capitalism. If so, why do they not move to Canada, France or Syria?
Finally, ask yourself if there are absolutes in this world. Are there rights and wrongs or is everything relative? If you choose the former, then you have a basis of morality that will guide you in the future. If you choose the latter, then you will go through life sitting on a fence never knowing what path or decision to make. Remember, there are those in this world that feel that it is perfectly normal or right to kill, rape, torture, or commit incest etc.
Sorry for the rant, but I too was trapped in a high school & college that gave a very slanted view on America. I actually made one of my teachers cry when I questioned her one day to provide documentation to back one of her assertions and she couldn't.
p.s Take a college course on statistics. It will help you understand how both sides on a position can use the same statistics to back their positions.
Report
archiesteel
18 years ago
There are no absolutes from a moral standpoint. There are acts that cause suffering, and acts that relieve suffering. There are acts that have positive consequences, and acts that have negative consequences.
It is possible to do evil things with good intentions. It is also possible to do good things with evil intentions. In my view, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is an act motivated mostly by strategic reasons, concerned with power and influence in a region that is key to hold the upper-hand in an energy-starved world. Its motives are not altruistic, but aim at preserving american supremacy over the rest of the world. However, the fact that Saddam has been deposed is a positive outcome, since he was without a doubt a brutal man. Yet one should also remember that those now in power supported this brutal man when it was convenient for them, even after he had gassed his own people...and that they still now support others who abuse human rights. Nothing is black or white in international politics. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself.
"Remember, there are those in this world that feel that it is perfectly normal or right to kill, rape, torture, or commit incest etc."
The U.S. has capital punishment. U.S. allies (and even the U.S. itself) use some form of torture in interrogating terror suspects. Do you denounce the U.S. as "evil" because of this?
Rape is an inexcusable act of agression, I'll give you that, but incest is primarily a social taboo and, though indicative of - in my view - serious psychological troubles, it is not inherently "evil."
Be careful of absolutes, they are mental short-cuts that can sometimes become embroiled in paradoxes. Following a moral path made of absolutes is dangerous. It is better simply to refrain from comitting acts that cause suffering in others, to treat others as they would treat us in other words.
Report