# The Official War Room



## ScottW (Mar 17, 2003)

This thread is for war discussion... whether the war begins tonight or Wed/Thur night... this is the place... so grab your 802.11 Powerbooks and join us in the War Room.


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 17, 2003)

>< ;


----------



## chevy (Mar 17, 2003)

Should we have a contest ? The best CNN picture shot of the war ?

Sorry, just kidding. Sometimes kidding is the only way for my brain to survive.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

It took long enough!  I'm ready to liberate an oppressed people and make the world a better place!


----------



## dixonbm (Mar 17, 2003)

I'm ready to go.  ScottW I'll be here with you on my Powerbook with airport watching Fox News and putting my 2cents in right here!


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

i wish i had a powerbook to watch fox news w/


----------



## chevy (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *It took long enough!  I'm ready to liberate an oppressed people and make the world a better place! *



Where do you want to start ?
Africa ?
Central America ?
Palestine ?
Irak ?
Korea ?
American Indian ?
Corsica ?
Nepal ?


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Where do you want to start ?
> Africa ?
> Central America ?
> ...



Where do i want to start?  I think that's pretty clear...
_Iraq..._


----------



## chevy (Mar 17, 2003)

and next ?


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

kanecorp - since you're wanting to do the liberating, shouldn't you be somewhere in the gulf right now? or did you mean your ready to see other americans give their lives for your beliefs?


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

kanecorp, your country is not democratic enough to free anything at all. Neither is mine.

If the USA go to war *alone*, UN will fall to its League of Nations status and Bush will definitely prove that the country he rules is not a democracy but a dictature. He will also prove the only law that rules this world is ruthless force, money and power.
This is my first ideological (in the sense: not backed up by super brilliant examples  ) post, and I hate to think I could be right.

Here in france it's 11:00 PM, and I'll be listening radio until I know more.

Anyone can tell me how I can watch CNN or Fox from my iMac ?


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

Well considering that fact that I?m under military enlistment age I don?t think that?s going to happen.
I think that?s a pretty poor argument as well.
just cause you're some _*personal attack removed*_ hippie, lets not start using ridiculous arguments.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *kanecorp, your country is not democratic enough to free anything at all. Neither is mine.
> 
> If the USA go to war alone, UN will fall to its League of Nations status and Bush will definitely prove that the country he rules is not a democracy but a dictature. He will also prove the only law that rules this world is ruthless force, money and power.
> ...


Well France sucks, but lets not talk about how _*personal attack removed*_...
First of all, we're not doing this *alone*.  Just remember, the freed Iraqi people will remember who helped them become liberated and who tried to make it so they remained under a brutal dictator...


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Have you asked the Iraqi people if they want to get bombed for freedom ?
BTW, Ed, you're a hippie now, it's official. Duh !


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Yeah ! Blair's friends are running away !


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Have you asked the Iraqi people if they want to get bombed for freedom ?
> BTW, Ed, you're a hippie now, it's official. Duh ! *



Yes I have seen the Iraqi people ask for their freedom.  They want to be freed.
just as we freed Europe from Hilter, we must save the Middle East from Saddam


----------



## ksv (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *Where do i want to start?  I think that's pretty clear...
> Iraq...  *



Yea, Saddam killed some thousand civilians, so therefore Bush should kill two million more? [An UN repost states one million is going to die because of hunger directly caused by the war. A German organization says two million in total]

Who is _oppressing_ people? If I remember correctly, it was Bush that let the North Alliance take over the control in Afghanistan. And we can all see how much _better_ Afghanistan has become?

Sorry, killing people and ruining civilizations isn't the right way to make freedom.

I've learnt that the best way to make freedom is to make friend


----------



## chevy (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *Yes I have seen the Iraqi people ask for their freedom.  They want to be freed.
> just as we freed Europe from Hilter, we must save the Middle East from Saddam *



Man, your history education has been... short.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *Yes I have seen the Iraqi people ask for their freedom.  They want to be freed.
> just as we freed Europe from Hilter, we must save the Middle East from Saddam *



LOOOOOOL
You have 'seen' them ? They want to be 'freed' by your ICBMs ?


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *Yea, Saddam killed some thousand civilians, so therefore Bush should kill two million more? [An UN repost states one million is going to die because of hunger directly caused by the war. A German organization says two million in total]
> 
> Who is oppressing people? If I remember correctly, it was Bush that let the North Alliance take over the control in Afghanistan. And we can all see how much better Afghanistan has become?
> ...



Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other person in recent history.  And no you dont remember correctly, the Northern Alliance does not have control of Afghanistan, they helped the US defeat the Taliban.  Afghanistan is now much better.  Sorry, but killing the "Bad" guys is the right way to give freedom.  I've learned that the best way to make freedom is to remove the ones who oppose freedom.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

_*personal attacks removed*_


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other person in recent history.



So Bush is racing for the record ?


----------



## chevy (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other person in recent history.  And no you dont remember correctly, the Northern Alliance does not have control of Afghanistan, they helped the US defeat the Taliban.  Afghanistan is now much better.  Sorry, but killing the "Bad" guys is the right way to give freedom.  I've learned that the best way to make freedom is to remove the ones or oppose freedom. *




Kill the bads, only the goods will survive.

Nice philosophy. I hope you are not the bad of your neighbours.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

kanecorp said: _*personal attacks removed*_

Fine? Now I know all my doubts about you were true. Our history is three times older than yours, and our news qualitatively four times better, and that's a minimum.

*Back to normal life, find me on iChat: brat270783 and macosxcom iChat room*


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *So Bush is racing for the record ?
> *



do i know of only force? No, and i also know of 14 UN resolutions that Iraq has not complied with and 8 years of an attempted peaceful solution


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *kanecorp said: *personal attack removed*
> 
> Fine? Now I know all my doubts about you were true. Our history is three times older than yours, and our news qualitatively four times better, and that's a minimum.
> ...



Oh really, you're history is not 3 times older than mine, infact, i bet i know about 10x more than all of you in news events and history.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Your own country is violating more than 14 UN resolutions.

It seems UN resolutions are valuable to your eyes only when it arranges you, strange, reminds me of some Prez...


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> **personal attacks removed**



If so many of us are wrong and you are right, why break the forum rules (*hint to moderators*) and start calling people names and questioning their intelligence?

Knowledge should be power, but you don't sound like someone who is empowered by what they think they know. If you are so sure of your position, start acting like you know that you are right.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

_*personal attack removed*_
I wish 9,000 of our men weren't buried in French ground that died protecting your country.  I wish we didn't protect you during the cold war.  Hell, we don?t need you even; you give us no military or economic benefits.  You are not longer an ally to the US in the eyes of Americans


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *If so many of us are wrong and you are right, why break the forum rules (hint to moderators) and start calling people names and questioning their intelligence?
> 
> Knowledge should be power, but you don't sound like someone who is empowered by what they think they know. If you are so sure of your position, start acting like you know that you are right. *



Yea hint to moderators!! It was started by everyone accusing me of wanting Muslims to be killed, and saying that my country was the bad one..ha! Defending myself of ignorant claims..oh no, ban me!


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Yeah mods, make some good work of *that* !

Kane quote:
"_*personal attack removed*_
 I wish 9,000 of our men weren't buried in French ground that died protecting your country.  I wish we didn't protect you during the cold war.  Hell, we don?t need you even; you give us no military or economic benefits.  You are not longer an ally to the US in the eyes of Americans"

Posted 03-17-2003 11:22 PM


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Yeah mods, make some good work of that !
> 
> Kane quote:
> ...


yea lets have everyone try and get me in trouble with the _*personal attack removed*_ mods...you know you'll all wrong, so thats all you can do..get me banned

_**kanecorp - this started when you attacked me and others. no one did anything but disagree with you. real americans believe strongly in the right to disagree. no one but you has gotten you in any trouble. i am only sorry i didn't get to this thread sooner than i did. making negative comments about mods and other members is never going to get you far around here. - edX** _


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Oh no, please, don't ban him, we're having so much *fun* !


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

_*personal attack removed*_


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Oh NO ! He's asking to be banned ! 

No we have other arguments. For my own, I have loads, read the older war threads.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

_*personal attack removed*_


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> Yea sorry my _*personal attack removed*_, that makes no sense



I am not anti-American

I am just anti-hawks.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

_*personal attack removed*_


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> _*personal attack removed*_



Brilliant !

I wasn't even born when that occurs. And antisemitism was proper to all Western countries at this time.


----------



## ksv (Mar 17, 2003)

My fingers are very close to _the button_ right now 

ookay, let's _try_ to get back on topic, should we?


----------



## mr. k (Mar 17, 2003)

Man, friendly discussion...  Lets all try and hold our mouths, no need to take personal shots (or shots at a persons NATION) just because he said a few little things... 
But really.  If this war really does go down, what will the implications be?  Currently the middle eastern population in general is not very happy with the US, and now that we are forcibly invading a middle eastern state (btw are the US' actions legal under international law?) whats gonna happen in terms of isolated terrorist cells?  Whats gonna happen to the world economy?  During the gulf war the American economy rose.  But I have heard many different things, and none of them seem like they would be a good outcome from the war on Iraq.  What will happen to the different groups of Iraqi's?  The Kurds, Shiites, and Suni people (those spelled right?)  have always had disputes, could this be the time for the kurds to establish their own nation?  
Lets turn this childish mudfight into a real discussion, why not?


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

I've taken note.

So, anyone can help me to catch US TV on my iMac please ? I'm very much ignorant of your TV channels, I know only CNN and Fox, any other one worth looking at ?


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 17, 2003)

Kanecorp, dude, chill out.  No need for name calling and such.  You definitely don't help any argument you might have by the approach you have chosen.  Keep in mind that many, and esp. foreigners, don't have the same agenda that the US does.  And while many of their arguments might fall along the lines of "war bad, peace good", you have to realize that any amount of trying to reason is not going to get you far.  State your arguments, if they counter with intelligent points, great, counter back.  If they come back with "war bad, peace good", learn to give it up.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *I've taken note.
> 
> So, anyone can help me to catch US TV on my iMac please ? I'm very much ignorant of your TV channels, I know only CNN and Fox, any other one worth looking at ? *


Wasn't born at that time?  Oh really, you're living right now?
_*personal attack removed*_


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _by kanecorp_
> *I wish 9,000 of our men weren't buried in French ground that died protecting your country.  I wish we didn't protect you during the cold war. *
> 
> _and_
> ...



I don't know about anyone else, but the blatant bigotry you are displaying here is pretty shameful.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

*mr K*: _ During the gulf war the American economy rose.  But I have heard many different things, and none of them seem like they would be a good outcome from the war on Iraq.  What will happen to the different groups of Iraqi's?  The Kurds, Shiites, and Suni people (those spelled right?)  have always had disputes, could this be the time for the kurds to establish their own nation?   
 Lets turn this childish mudfight into a real discussion, why not?_

Today's economy has nothing to do with 1991: a war today means Stock Exchange crashes, and no industrial boost. 

I think your spelling is alright.

The Kurdish nation (if that's a good thing, I have no fixed advice) needs no bombs to be created. The very last Kurdish nation rose in bombs and collapsed in bombs. The Kurdish population has already expressed its wishes for no more war around their national problem.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Kanecorp, dude, chill out.  No need for name calling and such.  You definitely don't help any argument you might have by the approach you have chosen.  Keep in mind that many, and esp. foreigners, don't have the same agenda that the US does.  And while many of their arguments might fall along the lines of "war bad, peace good", you have to realize that any amount of trying to reason is not going to get you far.  State your arguments, if they counter with intelligent points, great, counter back.  If they come back with "war bad, peace good", learn to give it up. *


Well thanks for the calm _*personal attack removed*_ responce.  I am perfectly willing to talk civilized about this, but it is impossible when _*personal attack removed*_ people say things likes "war bad, peace good".
They dont understand, that there will be no peace, without this war.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

_From kanecorp:_

 Wasn't born at that time?  Oh really, you're living right now? 
_*personal attack removed*_

03-17-2003 11:42 PM

---
I'm not sure commenting is needed here.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *From kanecorp:
> 
> Wasn't born at that time?  Oh really, you're living right now?
> ...



yea commenting is needed here.
You owe us Americans your lives.  You and Germany both do.  Its sad how your powerless country doesn't teach you what really goes on.  I feel bad for you really...well maybe not...


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> Well thanks for the calm _*personal attack removed*_ responce.  I am perfectly willing to talk civilized about this, but it is impossible when _*personal attack removed*_ people say things likes "war bad, peace good".
> They dont understand, that there will be no peace, without this war.



Anyone here will tell you I'm totally able to have a normal, thoughtful conversation over war. You will also learn I have rational arguments to oppose to this war (and not to war in general, as I'm not a pacifist). One of this arguments is realism in international relations. Another one is Kant's cooperation theories.



> there will be no peace, without this war


So your war is peace ?
War has never set peace for long term.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mr. K _
> *The Kurds, Shiites, and Suni people (those spelled right?)  have always had disputes, could this be the time for the kurds to establish their own nation? *



Turkey doesn't want a Kurdish state on their borders. They have been suppressing them for to long to let them have their own state (one of the stumbling points with Turkey I would guess).


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *
> 
> War has never set peace for long term. *



oh really, is France under attack right now?  Is there not peace in France...


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> You owe us Americans your lives.  You and Germany both do.  Its sad how your powerless country doesn't teach you what really goes on.  I feel bad for you really...well maybe not...



That's what I thought: you've stopped on page 2 of your history book ! Still referring to WW2 while we're living post-Cold War times. I'm scared, really.

By the way, you should know this by now: _Je suis un demeuré, un vrai de vrai._


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

_*entire post removed for being nothing but a personal attack - edX*_


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

Oh really, is USA under attack right now?  Is there not peace in USA...

(And PLEASE, don't refer to 9/11, I'd be laughing so hard I wouldn't even be able to answer back).


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *That's what I thought: you've stopped on page 2 of your history book ! Still referring to WW2 while we're living post-Cold War times. I'm scared, really.
> 
> By the way, you should know this by now: Je suis un demeuré, un vrai de vrai. *



did you not say that no war has led to peace...
well you're in a time of peace, and its been long term


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *They dont understand, that there will be no peace, without this war. *



There is a frightening statement if I have ever seen one. Basically, we have no hope for the future is what is being said.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Oh really, is USA under attack right now?  Is there not peace in USA...
> 
> (And PLEASE, don't refer to 9/11, I'd be laughing so hard I wouldn't even be able to answer back). *



wtf?? That was your arguement, you just backed up mine!
_*personal attack removed*_


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> _*personal attack removed*_



Yes ! He knows how links work ! I have nothing to hide. My AIM buddy is not a French flag, BTW. But this is getting off-topic, I won't elaborate. The only thing I'll elaborate is my point that war is a short-term solution, while negotitations are a long-term solution to the Middle-East problems, for instance, and to most nation-state conflicts.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *There is a frightening statement if I have ever seen one. Basically, we have no hope for the future is what is being said. *


no sorry, it means that once the threat at been defeated, peace will be there.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 17, 2003)

kanecorp - Keep in mind that toast is merely goading you.  When he saw how you responded, he continued to respond in such a way to push your buttons.  You oblige by getting more upset, and by doing so, weakening your credibility.  A common tactic.  

As frustrating as it may be, the best thing is to state your point, anyone reading with any intelligence will see that any "canned" responses are just that.  If someone replies that they think a "peaceful" resolution is better, ask them exactly what this "peaceful" resolution might entail, and what they would do if the "peaceful" way fails to achieve any progress.  Someone mentioned that it's better to get someone to do something if you make them your friend.  Ok, in this scenerio, just how does one make a despodic ruler "your friend".  etc.

Don't accept the bait, take the high road and resist the urge to get into the muck.  And don't allow them to make you your own worse enemy.


----------



## toast (Mar 17, 2003)

> well you're in a time of peace, and its been long term



Thanks to A Bomb. Want to use A Bomb again so that Iraq will know peace too ? Stop comparing what cannot be compared. Please.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> * My AIM buddy is not a French flag, BTW.  *


oh yea...patriotism...oh dare i!


----------



## Ricky (Mar 17, 2003)

This has gotten out of hand.  Thread closed.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

> This thread is for war discussion...



not for flaming and name calling.

kanecorp - read the site rules. there are NO EXCUSES for this type of behavior. cease your attacks of others now or be banned. Edit your posts now to remove all such personal attacks or risk being banned.

you have the right to argue with others and to take whatever stand on this issue you please. you do not have the right to wage verbal attacks. period. 

i agree with Ricky's decision to close this thread. i will consider opening it back up after a cooling off period.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

Bush has just finished his justification of war speech. i think it is very important that people have an opportunity to discuss this if they so wish. i hope everyone has calmed down abit by now. i'm reopening the thread and offering a chance for civil discussion of the issues and the events we are facing. 

i'm not going to issue any more warnings. step over the line and find your post(s) deleted and/or your membership here removed. i really don't care which side of the issue you are on, the rules apply to all.


----------



## mr. k (Mar 17, 2003)

I don't really know, but have things like this ever been said before?  Bush is looking to fight a preventitive war, and I hope he has knowledge of something other then common knowledge.  Under common knowledge, Iraq has been cooperating quite well with the inspections.  The inspectors found some old missle casings, Iraq destroyed them.  I am sure that the pentagon and CIA and other security/survelliance institutions know more then the average citizen, but I wonder what they know that constitues a war?
I personally liked how GWB wanted the Iraqi soldiers to drop their weapons... He said something like "don't fight for a failing nation.." I LIKE IT   He also said something like "Please listen to the American/British troops, they will tell you how to help us."  Good thoughts, Mr. Bush.


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mr. K _
> *I don't really know, but have things like this ever been said before?  Bush is looking to fight a preventitive war, and I hope he has knowledge of something other then common knowledge.  Under common knowledge, Iraq has been cooperating quite well with the inspections.  The inspectors found some old missle casings, Iraq destroyed them.  I am sure that the pentagon and CIA and other security/survelliance institutions know more then the average citizen, but I wonder what they know that constitues a war?*


*

i can't imagine that offering us proof of anything is going to compromise the war that Bush has planned so i join you in this questioning. "Show me the weapons" to paraphrase a great movie.




			I personally liked how GWB wanted the Iraqi soldiers to drop their weapons... He said something like "don't fight for a failing nation.." I LIKE IT   He also said something like "Please listen to the American/British troops, they will tell you how to help us."  Good thoughts, Mr. Bush.
		
Click to expand...

*
as much as i would like to believe this would be the outcome of the war, i know better and find these words to be a bit condecending. they remind me of the enemy radio broadcasts to our soldiers during ww2 and vietnam. we didn't tuck tail and run because of them and i doubt the iraqis will either. if anything it just adds fuel to them to prove that they will stand for their beliefs and not be seen to the world as cowards. 

i found mixed messages that can be interrpretted many ways in most of Bush's speech. i think much of the speech could just as easily have been made by saddam with the words Bush and America substituted. but  i was glad that he acknowledged that we will be in greater danger for the time being as a result of this action. already we are on alert level orange as a result. at least he didn't try to hoodwink the american people over that one.

my big question is - where in the h311 is saddam supposed to go? who in their right mind is going to open their doors to him? isn't this threat a bit like asking somebody to shoot themselves to save you the trouble?


----------



## Ugg (Mar 17, 2003)

GW has certainly written himself a place in the history books.  Who has done more to destroy international treaties and organizations and consensuses (sp) and to make the US the laughing stock of the world through its bullying of France, Germany and failed bribery of Turkey.  The US is still feared because of its enormous military and economic power and up until GW came into power respect was interwoven with that fear.  The respect is certainly gone and now only the fear remains.  Who was the last person to so totally polarize the world? What was his legacy?  What will be GW's?


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

the good news is that next year we will have elections. at that point we will see if he is to blame or if the american people are as guilty as he. just as past leaders have made the world better than their predecessors, so will his succesor be given the chance i'm sure. GW may not be listening to anyone now, but we do get a chance to tell him where to go in a short while.


----------



## mr. k (Mar 17, 2003)

Or mabye Bush will have made a brilliant move by attacking Iraq based on unreleased secure information he has seen, and he might just be saving the world with very few people knowing about it...  So mabye he gets re-elected big time next year...  You always have too look at both sides of the argument you see.  Don't be sure that Bush will be gone next year!


----------



## edX (Mar 17, 2003)

like i said, we'll see if it's just him or if the american people get to share the blame.


----------



## Jason (Mar 17, 2003)

im no fan of war, but sadaam needs to get out, so im kind of in the middle on the whole thing

i will say this though, bush has had a tough tenure, going through 9/11, economic slump and now war... even if some of it might be his fault, i wouldnt want to be in his shoes


----------



## RacerX (Mar 17, 2003)

At about this point in the term of Bush-I, he had about a 72% approval rating. Every major Democrat pulled out of the race figuring he would win.


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 18, 2003)

I think that by doing this, Bush has jeopardized his ablilty to run for a second term.

What would be happening right now if Gore was president?


and my final two comments
1) kanecorp, watch your mouth
2) toast, stop pushing him


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 18, 2003)

"Fighting for peace is like f*©king for virginity."  

- I forgot again who was the one who said it (read fryke's signature to find out) but that makes as much sense.


----------



## toast (Mar 18, 2003)

What was this Rolling Stones song ?
_Sparks will fly..._

Not only have we proved that our international institutions have neither power or legitimity, we have also proved we are unable to stop the strongest to attack the weakest. 'We' is the Western countries' block. All I hope is that my President won't stop his action for peace now.


----------



## Randman (Mar 18, 2003)

But is France doing it for peace or for $$$. Why help a country with the second-greatest oil reserves in the world develop a nuclear reactor if not to make weapons?? With that much oil, Iraw needs nuclear power like Cheney needs an invisibility cloak. Making a stand on principle (in any nation) is one thing, doing it to protect one's financial interests is another (and that goes for Bush as well as Chirac or Saddam or anyone else).

But Chirac has said France will join in the battle if Iraq unleases chemical weapons...

All we can hope for now is a quick resolution with a minimum of casualties all around so we can go back to debating things like paying $1 a song to Apple and if the iPod should have a radio tuner, or really important things such as why M$ $uck$.


----------



## toast (Mar 18, 2003)

France is protecting not only its economy (because yes, wa have interests in Iraq, just as every OPEP-trading country), but also its people. It's a bit risky to declare war on an Arabic country, you know .

Chirac will not join war IMHO. Bush is acting unilaterally now.


----------



## Randman (Mar 18, 2003)

If the Allied (yes, Allied since it's not just the US going in) attack can achieve its objectives quickly enough, this all might turn to Dubya's favor. Few casualties, good ratings, lower gas prices, ruthless despot removed, Palestinian statehood plan on the map (thanks to goading from Blair) is going to boost Bush into a second term and revive popular opinion of him and America across the world (and I'm working in SE Asia right now so I see things a little more from the international POV more than stateside).
  Now if Saddam hunkers down and tries to turn Baghdad into a live version of BlackHawk Down, it's going to be ugly. Luckily, Baghdad has nice open streets for the tanks to roll into.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, just that people have a short attention span.


----------



## chevy (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *no sorry, it means that once the threat at been defeated, peace will be there. *



We may have a problem with the identification of the threat.

Are we speaking about a local problem (that can be solved with a bomb) or about a global problem that will let other local problems emerge in the future if we don't solve these on a global basis ?

Somewhere I feel these days that we speak about one symptom, not about the causes.


----------



## fryke (Mar 18, 2003)

"Ami go home."


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 18, 2003)

Very nice speech he made.  I can't wait until you see the Iraqi's dancing in the streets with American flags and hugging US soldiers.  Its gonna be great to laugh at you all, again.


----------



## mr. k (Mar 18, 2003)

kanecorp... i expect you are a big supporter of this war.  But even so, you have to look at both sides of it.  I'm sure we would all love it if the Iraqi people had hated Saddam forever, but not all of them will.  And combined with a military that could have chemical weapons, this might not be a lovefest.  American soldiers have known to be reckless also, what if we get a little too excited? There are too many things that could go wrong in any war, this one included, to be able to say with any confidence what you just said.  And if it was a laughing matter I too be laughing at you right now and after this war because in all my certainty I can tell that your results will never come to be.


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 18, 2003)

I'm not going to check this "Official war room" again.  Unfortunatly none of you have anythign valid to say, so i will not waste my time any longer.


----------



## chevy (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *I'm not going to check this "Official war room" again.  Unfortunatly none of you have anythign valid to say, so i will not waste my time any longer. *



Why did you contribute to this thread if you didn't want to listen to other's opinions ?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Mar 18, 2003)

Hey, kanecorp, I am going to take away your superdrive iMac! (analog to USA trying to shoot out Saddam from his leading position). But you love your mac. (analog to Iraqi loving Saddam) Anyway, for some reason I feel very much disturbed and kinda threatened by your iMac. Unfortunatly I cannot convince you or anyone else in this forum. Anyway, I am sure I am right and I gonna take away your iMac and bounce it in pieces.

So? How do you think about this? Just to make it easier for you to understand the situation! ;-)
And now read again some of these posts, esspecially toasts, and I hope you will see what's it all about.

(Consider, I was just talking about the point that USA is making a step without successfully convincing other nations and finally giving themselves the right to proceed. That has nothing to do with democracy...)


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jet _
> *I think that by doing this, Bush has jeopardized his ablilty to run for a second term.
> *



Actually this is probably his one great shot at re-election.  The economy is down in the dumps and there is not much HE can do about it (paying the price for the "boom" years that never were, it'll come back, but only when it's good and ready, you can only drop the prime so many times).  People have short memories, they'll think "Clinton = Good Economy"  and "Bush = Bad Economy/Corp Greed" and open the door the the demos, though not much of what's currently going on is his "fault".

So this is his only shot at making a mark.  Everyone knows how Bush Sr's ratings jumped after Iraq v1.0 and I bet he's hoping for the same.  And that it will also jump start the economy.  At least he's wise enough to do it far enough away from the election to give the economy time to improve.  The turnaround didn't happen fast enough to help Sr.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> *Hey, kanecorp, I am going to take away your superdrive iMac! (analog to USA trying to shoot out Saddam from his leading position). But you love your mac. (analog to Iraqi loving Saddam) Anyway, for some reason I feel very much disturbed and kinda threatened by your iMac. Unfortunatly I cannot convince you or anyone else in this forum. Anyway, I am sure I am right and I gonna take away your iMac and bounce it in pieces.
> 
> So? How do you think about this? Just to make it easier for you to understand the situation! ;-)
> ...



Well not really a very good analogy.  To state that somehow Sadam is totally an innocent by stander who just happens to have differing world views is a gross oversimplification.  If kanecorp also lived in your neighborhood and beat his family, associated and maybe even helped those who killed one of your family members, kept illegal weapons in house and bullied his neighbors, then that would be a much closer representation of the situation at hand.  Your other neighbors say "lets sit tight and hope he moves out on his own" or "just call the cops and hope they show up and actually kick him out this time vs a "slap on the wrist"".  You are tired of waiting so you decide to "take matters into your own hands".

Gee, I never realized that kanecorp was such a despot


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Mar 18, 2003)

binaryDigit, as I said in my post, I was just talking about the case, someone enforces a judgment without being able to convince anyone else. I was not talking about how much I would (to fit to my example in my previous post) dislike kanecorps face. This would be very much analog to your description of Saddam. What Saddam does in his own country has nothing to do with anyone else. His ppl love him and don't fear him. Otherwise it would have been so much easier to get him out there... So, whatever you and other guess to know about Saddam, it has nothing to do with the legitimation to attack him without convincing neutral parties. That's why I made that example and I think it's more analog than I thought before.
The meaning of democracy has been raped from the USA. By a nation thinking they are the seeds of democracy... Funny, huh?

And let's not talk about the fact, that the war won't hurt Saddam but the innocent ppl there. But as I said, I wasn't talking about these things in my previous post


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> *binaryDigit, as I said in my post, I was just talking about the case, someone enforces a judgment without being able to convince anyone else. I was not talking about how much I would (to fit to my example in my previous post) dislike kanecorps face. This would be very much analog to your description of Saddam. What Saddam does in his own country has nothing to do with anyone else. His ppl love him and don't fear him. Otherwise it would have been so much easier to get him out there... So, whatever you and other guess to know about Saddam, it has nothing to do with the legitimation to attack him without convincing neutral parties. That's why I made that example and I think it's more analog than I thought before.
> The meaning of democracy has been raped from the USA. By a nation thinking they are the seeds of democracy... Funny, huh?
> 
> And let's not talk about the fact, that the war won't hurt Saddam but the innocent ppl there. But as I said, I wasn't talking about these things in my previous post *



His people love him and don't fear him?  Hardly.  While there may be a percentage of the population that fall into this category, there are still large numbers that despise and fear him.  Given his own humanitarian (or lack thereof) track record with his own peoples, how can you say that a perponderance of his own people like having him as their leader?    I wouldn't exactly call Sadams regime "democratic", so it's not like the US is crushing some popular president elected to office.

If you'll remember, there were attempts on Saddams life internally.  Just because people _couldn't_ oust him, doesn't mean that the reason is because people don't want him ousted.

War and the declaration thereof has never been a democratic process.  The US doesn't have elections to vote for going to war, never have.  It's funny that you use the word "seed", because in some ways that's exactly what the end result is hoped to be, the planting of a "seed" of democracy to a govt that is currently ruled by a dictator.

Can't argue anyones point about the US and UN though.  Interesting stuff.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Mar 18, 2003)

Oh believe me, ppl in his country are much more behind their dictator Saddam than americans behind their soldiers. I am originally from Iran and I know from my relatives what they think about all the situation. And even the Iranian, who were in war with Iraq long time ago and still didn't come to a friendly relation love Saddams courage. You know why? He turned to be the man who is not going to follow the big guys instructions and hit back. Why do ppl want USA to get hit back? Because many nations in that area criticise USA's blind intervention. 
I don't support this, since the history showed a lot of great interventions from the USA. But that's the way ppl in that area think and why I am sure, ppl are behind their violant dictator. But as long the nation is happy with their leader, noone has the right to intervent.
But if USA says, Iraq is a threat for US-people, than they should prove it before the action. And this is where they failed...

About my "seeds of democracy"...
as I said, binaryDigit: it's so paradox! USA is so sure they are the seeds of democracy, but the way they act rigth now they look more like Hittler than Saddam does. That's why the whole thing stinks


----------



## RPS (Mar 18, 2003)

....A little humour won't hurt anyone..


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> * ...
> About my "seeds of democracy"...
> as I said, binaryDigit: it's so paradox! USA is so sure they are the seeds of democracy, but the way they act rigth now they look more like Hittler than Saddam does. That's why the whole thing stinks *



Whoa, be careful about how you use your analogies there.  Comparing this US action against Iraq/Saddam to anything Hitler did is a stretch to say the least and quite insulting.  You can accuse the US of being overly zealous and self centered in it's handling of this situation, but to in any way compare it to what Hitler did is just wrong.

Interesting point about the "peoples" opinion though.  However, there is a difference between his people hating him and them hating the US even more.  Just because they hate the US more doesn't mean that they wouldn't love to see him gone.


----------



## AppMan (Mar 18, 2003)

HONK FOR WAR!!!!!


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Have you asked the Iraqi people if they want to get bombed for freedom ?*


I remember I was criticized earlier for this quote:



> None of the Iraqis who agreed to be interviewed for this article had any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Armand, a filmmaker from Chicago, says he hopes if there is a war, Saddam will be ousted.
> 
> "It makes me sick when people campaign against war," says Armand, who says he fled Iraq after taking part in the unsuccessful rebellion against Saddam that followed the Gulf War. "I don't want to live in this constant fear all the time. If there is a war and my family survives the war, I will at least be able to go and see them."



Source: here.

Granted, Armand is not in danger of being bombed by the U.S. Air Force, but his opinion is valid, yes?


----------



## Decado (Mar 18, 2003)

I think we should discuss a line that came up in this thread. Its meaning went something like this: "Iraq has illegal weapons".
Illegal weapons? Weapons of massdestruction? 

USA got them, and they have even attacked another country with them. Shouldnt it be illegal for USA also to have them?


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *I think we should discuss a line that came up in this thread. Its meaning went something like this: "Iraq has illegal weapons".
> Illegal weapons? Weapons of massdestruction?
> 
> USA got them, and they have even attacked another country with them. Shouldnt it be illegal for USA also to have them? *



Well it's not any different from police having and using weapons vs criminals having and using them.  If you are a felon, you can not legally get a handgun.  i.e. If by your actions you have proven that you are not responsible, then you lose certain rights.  This is the gist behind the UN's stance on Saddam having WMD.  It's obviously not JUST about any other country having WMD.


----------



## Decado (Mar 18, 2003)

yep, but there you have a mentality that only works in the USA, since in most (all?) european countries we dont have your insane weapon laws 
And who made USA the police???


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

BD, too many Americans are concerned about their rights and not about their responsibilities.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *BD, too many Americans are concerned about their rights and not about their responsibilities. *




If I were to take that kind of tone this is what would be said: Too many Europeans (esp. the French) are hating ALL Americans and are discriminate against me just because I am an American.

See what I am getting at?


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

_I think that by doing this, Bush has jeopardized his ablilty to run for a second term._

I strongly hope he won't get a second term. As for Tony Blair: I'm sure glad he'll be out of his office after the next elections by the latest.


_What would be happening right now if Gore was president?_

We might be in a similar situation (I don't think the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that fundamental anymore), he might also go to war with Iraq but he would probably get away with it (unlike GWB I hope).
I could open a debate on the US two-party system (and how much political diversity you can expect from that) now but I think we should concentrate on urgent matters here.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

I beg to disagree.  For one thing, the French have a much clearer idea of who we are.  Whether this allows them to judge us more fairly is debatable but nonetheless our ignorance of the world will be our downfall.  

As an American I have the right to legally own a gun.  I also have a morally if not legally defined responsibility to ensure that the gun is locked away from those who would misuse it.  Not only that but if I use that gun and I injure or kill someone without legal justification then they have the right to come after me with all the force of the law.  This is a simplified version of how things work.

Is GW willing to accept the fact that he is going to be killing many thousands of Iraqis?  Does he have the moral or legal justification to do so?  Is his behaviour responsible?  Does he have the right to make this decision?


----------



## Ugg (Mar 18, 2003)

One thing that I seem to keep reading in the foreign press is the religious fundamentalism that is common both to the USA and large parts of the Arab world.  The more I think about it, the more it scares me.  Both Arab and American versions of fundamentalism seem to share a common bond, one that goes back to the crusades, in that there is only black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, believer and non-believer.  

GW sounds more like a bad circuit preacher of the 30s and 40s than he does a ruler of the most powerful nation of the world.  But then maybe in the end we get what we want........


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

_About my "seeds of democracy"...
as I said, binaryDigit: it's so paradox! USA is so sure they are the seeds of democracy, but the way they act rigth now they look more like Hittler than Saddam does. That's why the whole thing stinks_

Be careful with such statements! Be sure to back them up with sufficient histprical knowledge. Although I wholeheartedly agree with you about the so called seeds of democracy I suggest you read a little more about WW2 and the time between the world wars before you compare anyone with Hitler.


_Granted, Armand is not in danger of being bombed by the U.S. Air Force, but his opinion is valid, yes? _

Sure he is. But we wouldn't be in today's situation if the Iraqi opposition had been properly supported by the US and its allies after Gulf War I. But I guess that option did not appeal to Bush Sr. and his successors.


----------



## Decado (Mar 18, 2003)

Ugg wrote:
"One thing that I seem to keep reading in the foreign press is the religious fundamentalism that is common both to the USA and large parts of the Arab world.  The more I think about it, the more it scares me.  Both Arab and American versions of fundamentalism seem to share a common bond, one that goes back to the crusades, in that there is only black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, believer and non-believer. "


im writing my university master paper on the subject of Lucretius (ancient roman guy who wrote this large poem in the century before christ about the nature of everything) and he noticed that there is always a line that must not be crossed in societies that worship gods. That is when you start to justify things by your religion. Gods should inspire love. not war.


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

_One thing that I seem to keep reading in the foreign press is the religious fundamentalism that is common both to the USA and large parts of the Arab world.  The more I think about it, the more it scares me._

You have good reasons to be scared. Just take a look at history and how much pain, suffering, injustice, death and grief religions have brought to the human race. Considering that the worlds most powerful nation is far from being a secular one (especially with the current government) and many of its opponents aren't either, there could be a desaster anytime.

One more reasons not to follow any flock when it comes to my personal beliefs. Organized religion can turn into anything: Blind faith combined with power is bound to oppress and/or force convert infidels.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by doemel _
> *One thing that I seem to keep reading in the foreign press is the religious fundamentalism that is common both to the USA and large parts of the Arab world.  The more I think about it, the more it scares me.
> 
> You have good reasons to be scared. Just take a look at history and how much pain, suffering, injustice, death and grief religions have brought to the human race. Considering that the worlds most powerful nation is far from being a secular one (especially with the current government) and many of its opponents aren't either, there could be a desaster anytime.
> ...



That "religious wars over the years" thing is getting quite old.  Yes, there have been countless atrocities done in the name of one "religion" or another.  But then again I completely fail to understand how anyone who has a concept of man outside a higher being can miss the point that if there IS NO higher being, then religions are merely an extension of man.  Therefore anything done in the name of "religion" would, could, and is being done even in the lack of an organized religion by the perpetrators.  Just because organizations such as churchs have power and therefore can foist their members into powerful roles is meaningless in the context of _man_ doing evil things to man.  Religion might give justification and an avenue to exercise ones will over a greater audience, but it hardly breeds evildoing any more than any other organized group.

Saying "look at how much suffering is caused by religions" is the same as saying "look at how much suffering is caused by a group of people against another group of people", whether they be bound by religion, economic status, race, tribe, country, gang, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## chevy (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *BD, too many Americans are concerned about their rights and not about their responsibilities. *



Here I cannot agree. This may be true in other cases but not here. In the contrary, on my opinion, USA feels responsible for something that the rest of the world would like to share responsability: how to make a better world. American think that because the other do not share their (just ?) view, they have the responsability to impose these. And the vast majority of the rest of the world thinks that they are other ways to think and to behave.


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

_Just because organizations such as churchs have power and therefore can foist their members into powerful roles is meaningless in the context of _man_ doing evil things to man.  Religion might give justification and an avenue to exercise ones will over a greater audience, but it hardly breeds evildoing any more than any other organized group._

Couldn't agree more. I'm just trying to point out that we're not dealing with opponents that base their motifs very much on reason.


----------



## ScottW (Mar 18, 2003)

Many of your comments make me sad, and laugh at the same time.

Just remember, God (the one true God) is in control.


----------



## doemel (Mar 18, 2003)

_Many of your comments make me sad, and laugh at the same time._

I guess this qualifies me as your opponent in this debate


----------



## mr. k (Mar 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *I think we should discuss a line that came up in this thread. Its meaning went something like this: "Iraq has illegal weapons".
> Illegal weapons? Weapons of massdestruction?
> 
> USA got them, and they have even attacked another country with them. Shouldnt it be illegal for USA also to have them? *


The reason that Iraq's weapons are illegal  is that Iraq is under sanctions from the UN, and forbidden to have any weapons.  The US is not under sanctions, and has the right under the charter of the united nations to defencd itself and its people.  Thats why we can have an army, and some pretty nasty guns.


----------



## mr. k (Mar 19, 2003)

Well, I guess its official...



> he opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime have begun..." -Ari Fleischer, 9:45 PM ET



some cruise missiles got shot, mr. B is talkin to the nation in seven minutes...  I hate when family memberes watch tapes of survivor 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html


----------



## kanecorp (Mar 19, 2003)

I'm not a religious man, but i'll can have to say about the war starting is, thank god.


----------



## edX (Mar 19, 2003)

well, all i can say is that it's good you've got a relationship with God, because i think there's going to be a lot of praying to be done in the future.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *Just remember, God (the one true God) is in control. *



And I wonder how you are going to answer for your actions and motivations when you see _Him_.

 Maybe you could play out that encounter by telling all of us how you expect your proud signature would be received by your god (  assuming you actually believe and it is not a matter of convenience).


----------



## toast (Mar 20, 2003)

Dangerous assimilations between God and war being made here.
It seems it has been forgotten that no religion supports war.


----------



## Randman (Mar 20, 2003)

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/


Just to lighten things up a touch.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 20, 2003)

Genoa, Italy, today's newspaper (La Repubblica). W (=viva) peace.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 20, 2003)

Cool rainbow!  and an even cooler collection of war protesters!


----------



## f_h_petrone (Mar 22, 2003)

some comments in this thread make me very afraid.
I cannot possibly think of someone that can tolerate ANY violent action for the sake of the so called "peace".
the WWI (yeah, the first one) was called "the war to end all wars"
The USA are always thinking they can dictate the path of the entire world. How do they do that?
ruling by the means of FEAR.
just as dictators do in their countries.
I'm not speaking in favor of Saddam.
I'm just saying that, just as every person has the right to do what he pleases to do, the same goes for the peoples, and the countries they live in.

Just remember this:
a person fighting for his own land is like a mother defending her child.

Vietnam proved this right for the US.
Russia proved this right for Napoleon, and Hitler (and also, for the Germany of 1914)
and there are plenty of more examples of this.

I come from a very economically opressed country. Argentina's leaders are corrupt, and very very greedy. We are not patriotic, we are not even close to being "good" people, we had a very cruel internal war (the dirty war of the 70's) that ended with more than 25.000 people dead. We used our guns against our own people. We are not an example for anybody. 

So I think I can say this very clearly:
NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHEN I HAVE TO DIE.
NOBODY, FOR ANY REASON.

they can put me in jail if i've done something against the rules of the society but never before a fair trial and a good set of jury people ruling against me.

only 5 or 6 out of more than 300 countries actively support this war. That means something. They can't possibly be ALL wrong.

PLEASE ALLIED FORCES, HEAR THE PLEAD OF THE MAJORITY!

STOP THIS INSANE WAR.

Federico.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by f_h_petrone _
> *So I think I can say this very clearly:
> NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHEN I HAVE TO DIE.
> NOBODY, FOR ANY REASON.*


What if you are a serial killer and have the means / will to kill again?


----------



## arun (Mar 22, 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2876105.stm


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *What if you are a serial killer and have the means / will to kill again? *



Serial killers should spend the rest of their life in prison. As may years in prison as possible.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

Thanks *f_h_petrone*. Not many people from this board come from oppressed countries. It's good to hear some opinions like yours, from times to times. Some aspects and/or consequences of war come to be rapidly eluded or simply forgotten here, thanks again.


----------



## mdnky (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Serial killers should spend the rest of their life in prison. As may years in prison as possible. *



That is what leads to the problems we have today...too soft on criminals, especially criminals with no regard for human life.  If you kill someone with no just cause (i.e. self-defense, protecting your life or someone elses) then you deserve the same punishment.


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

It's people like kanecorp, who are too young _*persoanl attack removed*_(he's under enlistment age, remember?), yet keep spouting off their mouths, that embarrass me as a citizen of the United States.  Remember, not all citizens of a country (or state, or city, or neighborhood even) follow the same opinions.  My psychology teacher is from Texas, and she has a thick accent, but she is very liberal and does not support Bush or many of the things Texas is "known for".  (This is a war room, though.)

The United States dictates who can have weapons and who can't, and can police them, because we are the world's strongest country.  We have the largest economy (by *far*, the highest technology, and our population, coupled with the above, gives us an incredibly strong military force _before_ the draft.  We have the power to boss others around that no one has ever been able to achieve in history.  Like it or not, that's just the way it is.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just how it is.  We make the rules on who does what and we can't be held to the same standard because?well, *you* try invading us.  That's why the United States is in a position to invade a country like Iraq when that same country is performing an "illegal act" by doing the same.

We Americans like to think we are an "enlightened" country, even though capitalism does not provide for anyone.  It's basically, "You're on your own.  Good luck and here are the ways we are going to screw you over.  Number 1...".  Anyway, we have certain rights set down in our basic document, the Constitution of the United States, that we would like to apply to as many people as we can, even if they don't want it.  (For all you gun nuts out there, the 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  This does _not_ say that you can have a gun in your house to protect yourself; rather, it says you may carry a gun to protect your state (country) in times of danger.  Most people misinterpret this to say that (almost) anyone can carry a weapon, which it does not say.)  I think it's for this reason that, despite any and all corruption in government and practices, it's a good thing the United States is in power and not another country like China or Russia.


> _Originally posted by ScottW_
> *Just remember, God (the one true God) is in control.*


Please be cautious of making statements like this.  Not everyone believes in God, and certainly not the Christian idea of God, and you may intrude on someone else's beliefs.  I myself am Jewish and I find it uncomfortable when people refer to Jesus Christ as the "true savior."  (This may be the topic of another thread, but) nobody has proven the existence of God, despite all the "evidence," and no one can say for sure that God helps him.  People who claim to receive divine guidance are typically deluding themselves into thinking that God really has a hand in what happens in their lives.  (Please don't flame me on this, I'm trying to come at this from a logical & rational point of view.)  If I intrude on your beliefs, I'm sorry; all I ask is you don't intrude on mine or anyone else's, and be wary of whether what you say may do this.

For some _really_ good mudslinging (not this *ahem* crap [get it, mud/crap... ] between toast & kanecorp), check out the column on Gore being added to Apple's executive board.  It deviates rather interestingly.

I feel like Philip Roth with such a long post...


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mdnky _
> *That is what leads to the problems we have today...too soft on criminals, especially criminals with no regard for human life.  If you kill someone with no just cause (i.e. self-defense, protecting your life or someone elses) then you deserve the same punishment. *



I'm not sure that death penalty is harder than a life in jail. Many serial murders are depressed people that are committing some kind of psychological suicide when they kill... death penalty is a liberation for them. A (long) life in jail is not a liberation.


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

quote:
Originally posted by ScottW 
 Just remember, God (the one true God) is in control.

You are probably speaking about the Christian God, whose son Jesus died for us. It sounds like this God has several voices, or some Christian have hearing problems, 'cause the Pope didn't translate His message the same way as you did. Or maybe it's another God ?


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mdnky _
> *That is what leads to the problems we have today...too soft on criminals, especially criminals with no regard for human life.  If you kill someone with no just cause (i.e. self-defense, protecting your life or someone elses) then you deserve the same punishment. *



This is a completely different topic which does *not* fit this thread at all. I'll make a very brief answer then: in this logic, mdnky, the American soldiers who are fighting in Iraq (and they are not killing for self-defense, are they ?) deserve lethal injections.

"An eye for an eye"... Even the Quran considers this sort of law as obsolete !    Please, there are far better arguments in support to death penalty. But the one you gave is the most shameful, primitive and ignorant of them all.

Deeper discussion deserve an entire thread, though. Make my day


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *in this logic, mdnky, the American soldiers who are fighting in Iraq (and they are not killing for self-defense, are they ?) deserve lethal injections.*


Criminals are typically defined as those who commit crimes (kill, etc.) within the jurisdiction of their home country while not in a state of war.  The American soldiers are following orders to eliminate a threat to our security (and your oil), and they occasionally have to kill Iraqis who resist and aid Saddam.  Because our governments are at odds, then, right or wrong as it is, our troops are deserving of no such injections.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Criminals are typically defined as those who commit crimes (kill, etc.) within the jurisdiction of their home country while not in a state of war.  The American soldiers are following orders to eliminate a threat to our security (and your oil), and they occasionally have to kill Iraqis who resist and aid Saddam.  Because our governments are at odds, then, right or wrong as it is, our troops are deserving of no such injections. *



So, still in this eye4aneye logic, who deserves to die for the civilian Iraqi victims ?
My aim was to prove this talion logic makes no sense. Pretty successful IM_H_O.


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

I think no one deserves to die, but I'm just trying to explain what my view of the "official" consensus is.  If I'm at war with you, I'm going to kill your people because if I don't, you may kill mine.  It's not right, but it's politics.


----------



## moav (Mar 23, 2003)

This war isn't looking good, it looks like we have already 300+ confirmed  Americans dead not to mention that countless Brits that have died. Anyone have totals from last war. These guys are starting to scare me. I hope we don't get within 20miles of the city and nuculear and biological detentions start happening then tanks with mig engines strapped to them start blowing those gasses towards our troops.  

War is Hell I guess.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

War is worse than Hell. Have you heard that: an American soldier has thrown a grenade on his own friends, killing 1 wounding 12 !


----------



## Ugg (Mar 23, 2003)

It will be very interesting to find out what that was all about!  The govt. has been very tight-lipped about it.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 23, 2003)

Here is a link to an x-ray of the "true" GW Bush 

http://www.gradis.net/xray.htm


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

Okay, it's nice but not everyone is going to like that  Please keep such things for PM's and AIM, otherwise you're comforting some toolesque people in their idea we're complete dummies.


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2003)

we are rocking now!! we've managed to shoot down a british plane and to capture a pink pickup truck!! wahooo!!


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *War is worse than Hell. Have you heard that: an American soldier has thrown a grenade on his own friends, killing 1 wounding 12 ! *



German student kills 16 fellow students and himself after being expelled.

Chinese restaurant manger kills 38 and sickens >400 by poisening a competitors food.

Korean man kills ~200 by setting a fire in a subway.

French gunman kills 8 and wounds 30 at a city council meeting.

So how is war worse than hell because of the incident you state?


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2003)

yes the world is filled with madmen and it is already a scary place. but it is even scarier when 2 of them have control of nations and go to war with each other.


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *we are rocking now!! we've managed to shoot down a british plane and to capture a pink pickup truck!! wahooo!!
> 
> *



LOL, Ed!


----------



## dlloyd (Mar 23, 2003)

_*Maybe not the right place to post this, please move it if necessary!*_

I just heard Jane Goodall speak live last night (a very inspiring person, by the way. If you don't know who she is, well, I don't know what to think of you  ). But anyway, she mentioned some pro-peace stuff, and it started me thinking: it seems that many researchers and people of science are very pro-peace. I wonder if that is because they, unlike us in our busy materialistic lives, have spent so much time close to nature that some of it's tranquility has rubbed off on them...


----------



## toast (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *German student kills 16 fellow students and himself after being expelled.
> Chinese restaurant manger kills 38 and sickens >400 by poisening a competitors food.
> Korean man kills ~200 by setting a fire in a subway.
> ...



Well, _these_ madmen go to prison or to psychiatric institutes. At least


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Well, these madmen go to prison or to psychiatric institutes. At least  *



Are you saying the soldier that is responsible for the bombing in Kuwait will not be punished?


----------



## Arden (Mar 24, 2003)

Oh, I'm sure he'll be reprimanded or something...


----------



## doemel (Mar 25, 2003)

_I just heard Jane Goodall speak live last night (a very inspiring person, by the way. If you don't know who she is, well, I don't know what to think of you  ). But anyway, she mentioned some pro-peace stuff, and it started me thinking: it seems that many researchers and people of science are very pro-peace. I wonder if that is because they, unlike us in our busy materialistic lives, have spent so much time close to nature that some of it's tranquility has rubbed off on them... _ 


I happen to be close to the scientific community (I'm a student in environmental sciences) and I can support that idea of many researchers being anti-war. I'm presently attending a symposium of the Canadian Water Network and although it's not a matter of official talk people are discussing the issue and I don't feel very much support for the war. Note that there's virtually no people there that could somehow be labelled as hippies, tree huggers or enviromental fundamentalists but it's rather a gathering of scientists/specialists and policymakers in various disciplines.


*Disclaimer: I am in no way representative for the mentioned institution but only bring in my personal observations!*


----------



## qwikstreet (Mar 27, 2003)

I just found out today that the Marine troop that got ambushed by surrending Iraqis was my cousins troop. He is ok.


----------



## edX (Mar 27, 2003)

qwikstreet - very glad to hear your cousin is ok. i hope very much that he remains that way!! i fear that it will be sooner rather than later that this war starts to touch some of us in very personal and painful ways. i continue to pray that it ends soon.


----------



## toast (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Are you saying the soldier that is responsible for the bombing in Kuwait will not be punished? *



I don't know what will happen.
But most of the time, this type of crimes are eluded by military administration to preserve the army's reputation and image. However, as this tragic event has been covered by the media, I think he will be punished.



> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Oh, I'm sure he'll be reprimanded or something...*



I hope he'll end his days in a psychiatric institute. Remember this guy has killed someone, and on top of that one of his own men, not even someone who was shooting at him, with no reason. He badly needs to visit an asylum for, say, 50 years, for sure.


----------



## Arden (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *I hope he'll end his days in a psychiatric institute. Remember this guy has killed someone, and on top of that one of his own men, not even someone who was shooting at him, with no reason. He badly needs to visit an asylum for, say, 50 years, for sure. *


Hence the sarcasm in my original comment...

With all the attention this man has received, I don't see how he can't come under some sort of intense scrutiny or not be punished.


----------



## toast (Mar 27, 2003)

Amen.


----------



## Cat (Mar 30, 2003)

It's a bit late to post this, maybe it even has been remarked elsewhere... but: have you noticed how the position of the US on the war has changed dramatically before and after the beginning of the war?
While trying to convince everybody before it all started the continued to state that the war would be easy, short, clean etc. ONE DAY after the war started they were already saying that the war would be long and difficult. Now they are even rethinking their whole strategy it seems. If Basra is indeed a prelude to Baghdad the war is going to last months, not weeks. Fighting from street to street. Civilians messing about to defend their homes. Soldiers disguised as civilians. Suicide bombers. ... and still no weapons of mass distruction ... exept the US ones, and thirst, hunger, lack of medicines ... war is no worse than hell: war is hell.


----------



## toast (Mar 30, 2003)

What makes me laugh is the people who were actively posting here that the war would be "quick", "immediate", a matter of "one or two months". And now that Bush is asking for more cash to bomb Iraq, these people have all gone silent.


----------



## Ugg (Mar 30, 2003)

Yeah, it is interesting how the hawks have become silent.  I just wonder how Rumsfeld is dealing with all this.  His demise shouldn't be much longer in coming now that his battle plan has proved to be unviable.


----------



## toast (Mar 30, 2003)

His battle has proved able, but more costly than expected. After all, the US troops will reach Bagdad one day. At which cost ? Nobody knows.


----------



## Cat (Mar 31, 2003)

Basra could become a test. Baghdad will take at least twice as long. Nasty, brutish and long.


----------



## toast (Mar 31, 2003)

And bodybag-costly.


----------



## Arden (Mar 31, 2003)

Why the hell doesn't the military bomb Saddam's palaces from the sky?


----------



## Ugg (Mar 31, 2003)

That's what they've been doing, and rather successfully too.  One of the problems is the underground bunkers that seem to be unpenetrable except for nuclear bombs.  Also, the Iraqi forces haven't been very good about staying where it would be most convenient to bomb them. 

It definitely looks as though it is going to be a long and deadly fight for Bagdad.  The Iraqi forces have certainly been getting a great deal of moral support from the rest of the world and the general attitude in Iraq seems to so far be "better the devil you know rather than the angel you don't"


----------



## Cat (Apr 1, 2003)

> Why the hell doesn't the military bomb Saddam's palaces from the sky?



1) Saddam isn't there.
2) Some of the palaces are a UNESCO world heritage.
3) Some palaces are in dense populated area's, with elevated risc of 'collateral damage'.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *It's a bit late to post this, maybe it even has been remarked elsewhere... but: have you noticed how the position of the US on the war has changed dramatically before and after the beginning of the war?
> While trying to convince everybody before it all started the continued to state that the war would be easy, short, clean etc. ONE DAY after the war started they were already saying that the war would be long and difficult. Now they are even rethinking their whole strategy it seems. If Basra is indeed a prelude to Baghdad the war is going to last months, not weeks. Fighting from street to street. Civilians messing about to defend their homes. Soldiers disguised as civilians. Suicide bombers. ... and still no weapons of mass distruction ... exept the US ones, and thirst, hunger, lack of medicines ... war is no worse than hell: war is hell. *



And this surprises anybody?  Let's talk common sense here, it's all in the marketing right?  How on earth are you going to build support for the war if you come out and say that "it'll be a bloody months/years long conflict that will result in a great lost of innocent lives".  And then once the shooting begins, once again, you prep people for something closer to reality.

This isn't some trick devised by the military to fool people.  It's called politics.  It's called marketing.  It's called the same thing everyone does everyday, war or not.

If you want your kid to take their medicine, you don't say that it will taste terrible, leave a horrendous aftertaste in their mouth for hours, possibly upset their tummies and make it so they won't feel like playing.  And when you're in that interview you don't tell them that you're a hard worker, but tend to want to spend hours on MacOSX.com replying to war posts 

One last point, shouldn't we all be _sad_ that the "hawks" were wrong?  I know it feels good to be right (or at least your "opponent" to be wrong), but I think in this case proving the other guy wrong ends up being the worse case.


----------



## edX (Apr 1, 2003)

> One last point, shouldn't we all be _sad_ that the "hawks" were wrong?  I know it feels good to be right (or at least your "opponent" to be wrong), but I think in this case proving the other guy wrong ends up being the worse case.



you're right BD, there's nothing to gloat about here. i would have loved to have been wrong on this one. i would still like to be wrong as i see things getting worse instead of better the more i learn about it. being right about the war not being over in a week is nothing to celebrate.


----------



## toast (Apr 1, 2003)

> Why the hell doesn't the military bomb Saddam's palaces from the sky?



Because surgical strikes are an illusion of the mind. The missile may be surgical when tested in Nevada deserts, it is not in Iraq, where sandstorms + hi temperature + no precise knowledge of geography = completely random strike.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Because surgical strikes are an illusion of the mind. The missile may be surgical when tested in Nevada deserts, it is not in Iraq, where sandstorms + hi temperature + no precise knowledge of geography = completely random strike. *



Well it certainly is much more "surgical" than carpet bombing and not nearly as "random" as you state.  Is it perfect, no, but to deny that there is some success in limiting collateral damage due to their use is to misrepresent reality.


----------



## Arden (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *2) Some of the palaces are a UNESCO world heritage.*


Not the ones he makes his people die to build just because he has money to burn...


----------



## toast (Apr 1, 2003)

Bombing a Syrian bus is not limiting collateral damage in my humble opinion.

About collateral damage in general

If you cannot remember why the expression 'collateral damage' was created, look here.

If you want to read about what collateral damage is exhorting some people to do, come here.


----------



## toast (Apr 1, 2003)

... And I won't evoke friendly fire, what a JOKE


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Bombing a Syrian bus is not limiting collateral damage in my humble opinion.
> 
> About collateral damage in general
> ...



Toast, did you read my post.  I said that it wasn't perfect, perhaps far from it.  HOWEVER, there are other approaches that don't even make an _attempt_ to limit the collateral damage.  The US has dropped how many thousands of bombs/missles?  Even if only 1 percent miss their targets (and the reports are of percentages higher) then we're looking at a lot of "unintentional" things being destroyed.  If the US had wanted to simply just "bomb the hell" out of Baghdad, they certainly could, but they choose not to, and instead they are _trying_ to be more strategic (and some would say humanitarian, and I know, many would not) in their choices.

Plus your comment about friendly fire.  I guess anything short of perfection in destruction will illicit flippant comments about how life (and in this case, death) isn't happening perfectly and neatly.  And we as adults KNOW that this is not the case, right?

So to recap, you can bring up as many examples of screwups as you want.  It will surprise no one, and no one is really impressed by the articles and pictures because everyone knows that it occurs.  Why bother bringing these issues up.  Unless you are making a claim that the US is intentionally striking (or wantonly ignoring the safety of) civilian targets.  If that is the case, then the examples you give lend nothing to that argument.


----------



## toast (Apr 1, 2003)

- binary, I have read your post.

- I often post links, less occasionnally images, because they are talkative media and may be of some use to people who want to know more.

- Accidents and friendly fires since the beginning of the conflict have been unually numerous, which leads me to focus on this. Many Pentagone advisors think Rumsfeld has rushed into the war without sufficient preparation.

- And I am not saying friendly fires or bobing of civilian targets is intentional.


----------



## Cat (Apr 1, 2003)

"Accidents and friendly fires since the beginning of the conflict have been unually numerous"

You can say that again! The first british military killed in battle was the seventeenth ... the other 16 were killed by friendly fire ...

To bring war upon a 5 million city is a form of wantonly ignoring the safety of civilian targets. People in Basra are already dying due to lack of water and food, and partial lack of electricity. The army claims it's not their priority to help them and seems unable or unwilling to assist the few NGO's who are trying to help.
We're not talking just of clean instant bullet kills, but about horrendously slow uncertain desperate deaths, due to famine and illness.

Moreover the US has repeatedly bombarded civilian facilities like broadcasting stations, telephone infrastructure and the ministry of information, were international news agencys had their headquarters.


----------



## doemel (Apr 2, 2003)

I have just read in a Swiss newspaper that the accuracy of the so called smart bombs/missiles (since when do weapons bear attributes of intelligence anyway  ) is about 90%. That means 10% hit a random target. I leave it up to you to calculate how many out of the total bombs/missiles used so far have not reached their intended target.
I don't dispute the advantage of "smart" bombs over carpet bombing, I dispute the use of any bombs.


----------



## doemel (Apr 2, 2003)

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2468581

Is this the American government's answer to criticism? On what ground exactly are thousands of peaceful demonstrators arrested? I know elsewhere they just run over protesters with tanks (remember Tinaniman square, Bejing, 1989?), but does it have to even get anywhere close to that? Freedom of speech my ass! On the other hand, in the very country I'm talking about you can find KKK and tons of other narrow minded racist scum websites without any obvious censorship (BTW, there's a good many European countries with affective laws preveinting that kind of propaganda from being published).
Just another double standard?


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 2, 2003)

New Superpower Star Wars Infantry Toys.

Read about it here:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=304

and the PDF schematics here:

http://www.defensereview.com/352003/TIS1.pdf


----------



## Ugg (Apr 2, 2003)

Demonstrators are usually arrested for blocking access to buildings streets, etc.  In a weird sort of way it is a time-honored tradition in the USA to tie yourself to a gate or lay down en masse in the street to block traffic or live in a redwood tree.  By doing this you will get arrested and the protesters now that.  It is a sure way to get your cause into the news.  

The unfortunate aspect about our free speech laws is that they apply to everyone and virtually every form of expression.  Remember, europeans emigrated here to escape the oppression in their home countries.  Please do not think that I am defending the KKK or Neo-Nazi groups, far from it.  However, the US has not found a way to evolve in regards to the free speech laws in the law books.  I find this highly reprehensible.  

In the southern states, the Confederate flag is still flown proudly and is an integral part of a couple of state flags.  Most white southerners don't find this to be a problem, however, if the germans were to raise the Nazi swastika over the Reichstag, they would be the first to denounce the Germans for their insensitivity.  

Free speech and civil liberties have been dealt a severe blow with the Patriot Act.  Yet the KKK and the neo-Nazis and the confederate flag are all still found to be valid forms of expression.  There is no doubt in my mind that we are entering a period of McCarthyism.  It is a sad day for America.


----------



## Arden (Apr 2, 2003)

The first period of McCarthyism in America was the Salem witch trials.  The second was the Red Scare.  The third is the war on terrorism.

Protesters think that by blocking traffic, yelling at people minding their own business, getting in people's way and causing mayhem, they will change our leaders' minds.  However, many people don't want a part in their protests, and dragging our workers, civil servants, and everyone else who drives anywhere during the day into the ruckus is only causing chaos, not reform.

The right way to protest was demonstrated a while back in Sacramento.  A number of people stood on a corner holding signs saying (ironically) "Honk for peace."  They did not block the streets or get in anyone's face, and they got their message across peacefully and without causing a ruckus.


----------



## doemel (Apr 3, 2003)

I don't think blocking a street qualifies as ruckus. You've obviously never seen a real riot. At the end of the war will probably do more damage to the American economy than a bunch of protesters keeping other people from going about their own business. Bet your government is not going to admit that.


----------



## edX (Apr 3, 2003)

well, the best way for non-americans to start protesting the war is to stop buying american products.


----------



## toast (Apr 3, 2003)

To verify what Ed just said, I recommend you all look at www.adbusters.org . That's what I call boycott !


----------



## doemel (Apr 3, 2003)

_well, the best way for non-americans to start protesting the war is to stop buying american products. _

The problem with that is that (in Europe at least) there's so many American products on the market, many of which people are not even aware of their actual origin (or at least where the company that owns the producer is based). The first target is usually the visible ones and often enough that's where it stops. People still keep on buying what I consider the worst American exports: Commercial movies and music. And then there's all the drugs that US drug companies hold a patent/monopoly and that some people can not simply stop using (or are so hooked on that they don't want to stop using them) etc., etc.

I do think economic sanctions is an strong tool but at the end it's the people that suffer (see Iraq, Cuba etc.) and not necessarily the government. I don't want to see more Americans being laid off, I just want to see the government gone.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by doemel _
> *I don't think blocking a street qualifies as ruckus. You've obviously never seen a real riot. At the end of the war will probably do more damage to the American economy than a bunch of protesters keeping other people from going about their own business. Bet your government is not going to admit that. *



It qualifies if its a busy street.  And in this case a ruckus != riot.  We've seem plenty of real riots.  Of course the irony of war protestors causing riots would be quite interesting.  Do you expect ANY govt to come out and say "we screwed up and now the country is much worse off, our bad, can you forigive us, and oh yes, vote for us again next year?"


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *well, the best way for non-americans to start protesting the war is to stop buying american products. *



In which case I guess they better stop using this board then


----------



## tazmandevil (Apr 6, 2003)

So, now the case is full!

You Americans "always" compares us Europeans with the "nazis" of the second world war. Well, if you'r interestet, i does not know one Nazi today! not even a Neo-Nazi (in contraire, in your free country Neo-Nazis has their own TV-Station, their own battlefields, wehre they can fight for their right to have their meaning)

No no no!!! Europeans have "learned" about the ways and consequences of the second world war and the horror that makes it possible, that somone like hitler was getting to the absolute power.

But you americans (sorry for the overall style, i know, there are ever more and less intelligent individums) Still today... it seems, that you have nothing learned!

How was Hitler able, to come to his Power?

Right: he dumbefound his citicens and gave them what they wantet to see! With Propaganda over TV, Radio and other Medias.

Now, have a look to the present!

Who (really) Who, is today capting press informations and a global balanced news, to hold the illusion of a "clean war"?

Cheiny, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeldt, Bush, Fox News, CNN, ABC, MSNBC and your Government!


The best way, to help upcoming a Dictator like Hitler, is to believe everything your Gov. and your Medias are telling you!


Look, Al-Jazeera was hacked. Have you understand just a quarter of what the hell there goes on? ->

Al-Jazeera is NOT iraqi-TV. Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with Bin Ladin and the 9.11. Al-Jazeera is a free, CNN-like Broadcast Network in the whole arabic world!

There are dozens of pages/sites, that are found by seek-engines, that guess to be "al-jazeera" Since the war begun, no one of them is the "REAL" al-jazeera. A big lie, that your Medias and Gov. try to dumbefound you! Do you (Americans) never have seen the "REAL" Movies, Pictures an News from Al-Jazeera.net! What you have seen, are highly manipulated and censored Views, how American-Gov. has like to be that Al-Jazeera should be!

This Hacker-Attaks are not been just "private persons". No way! There are not just the "root-servers" (5 of 8 in american hands) that recurved the real/original links. Not even the english.aljazeera.net is the real Al-Jazeera. There behind stands the CIA, Veri-Sign, Microsoft and your Army!

(Not just the domain-names are captured, also their IP's, and that i guess, goes far deeper, than a usual hacker can do this! That goes up to the military-root servers... tell what you want!)


Has it no sense? Are the americans believe what they believe, they are to dumbefound of her Gov and too far into their illusion-construct (also from their Gov.) how the world "is" (it's not)?
Every day I found/see more lies, published by your "heroes"! that goes from:
* the "white powder" (which is showed as biological weapons) no, these are anti-biological weapons pouder!
* there are only less collateral dammages (have you seen this 4500 wounded civillians, which are not told from? (wiht one eye shot out, legs off, holes in bodys... etc., nor the 1070 death civilians? there are other 30.000 soldiers died, but there I agree, they don't count!)
* The dozens of "May-Be" Aljazeera websites that talks sure the language of CNN and Fox, but SURE not from Al-Jazeera.
* That Iraq should send out Al-Jazeera from Bagdad! (who was sending who out of bagdad?)

American Gov.'s "OSA" Departement for Desinformation has done perfect work. Applause

Never again I will trust an american Media or News-Channel!


----------



## wiz (Apr 6, 2003)

nope! i never did completely trust the american (USA) media. a lot of "show-off" attitude can be seen in there. alas! they control america.


----------



## fryke (Apr 6, 2003)

what tazmandevil said.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 6, 2003)

Al-Jazeera is probably the most important News source in the world today.  Not for what it broadcasts but because it is the first independent news company in the middle east.  What a lot of Americans don't realize is that Al-Jazeera is equally hated by a lot of middel east governments.  Mainly because it is providing a source of news other than the government's for the first time ever.  

The other aspect of this war that most Americans aren't getting is that this war is being broadcast into the homes of tens of millions of people who didn't "see" the last war.  As we learned in Vietnam, TV has a powerful effect and the outcome can only be a long-lasting hatred/resentment of US domination.

I agree with Tazmandevil in that we Americans have been sucked into believing that this war is necessary due to the immense propaganda machine in Washington.  Although it seems that daily we are told that they have found evidence of WMD, in the final analysis there is no proof.  Maybe there will be, but some of the most "promising" sites have turned up nothing so far.  

The real war, IMO, is yet to begin, the war between the US and the rest of the world.


----------



## toast (Apr 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *The real war, IMO, is yet to begin, the war between the US and the rest of the world. *



LOL ! USA just won round #1 against Kurdistan.  
Check the pictures and story from a survivor (BBC reporter)


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *LOL ! USA just won round #1 against Kurdistan.
> Check the pictures and story from a survivor (BBC reporter) *


Yeah... ha ha.  Friendly fire is really funny.


----------



## toast (Apr 6, 2003)

Please don't feel offended. I found the actual event so much... You know, this V-effect, in Bertold Brecht (_Verschfremdungeffekt_ I think that's it in German), the laugh you get when something occurs and that it's so horrible you would do anything for it not to happen to you... Something like this.

Friendly fire: the irony of it all.


----------



## doemel (Apr 7, 2003)

_You know, this V-effect, in Bertold Brecht (Verschfremdungeffekt I think that's it in German)..._

It's "Verfremdungseffekt", but you're close enough for a non-German - it's a terrible language to learn, I'm glad I'm native German speaking  But then again, I had so much trouble learning French at school: All the rules and *all the exceptions* to the rules... I hated French at school but love it now. I have to say though that I went out with a sweet Québecoise for 2.5 years  It's French, but not as "stiff" (or as some people say "stuck up") as the French you can find in some parts of France (no offense, toast!). But then again, it's just a language and the way it's spoken doesn't necessarily reflect the attitude of the people. One thing I really love about Québec is that they make an important difference in an English dominated North America.

I'm getting way off topic here, sorry for that!


----------



## toast (Apr 7, 2003)

We have some ERASMUS students from Québec here at my institute, complete different approach of political science - refreshing people, they make the discipline even more enjoyable 

*off-topic too *


----------



## fryke (Apr 9, 2003)

So what's about these US troops friendly-fireing reporters in a hotel? And accidentaly killing an Al Djazeera journalist? (The troops got fire from the lobby or first floor and then fired at the 15th floor, at a hotel they _knew_ there were journalists in.)

Okay, maybe it was just a mistake. But I also have to ask myself what those reporters are thinking...

And the worst thing I've seen yet: Watch the end of a CNN 'show' about the war. You'll see, at the very end: "The War In Iraq, © 2003 by CNN"

Huh?!


----------



## Cat (Apr 9, 2003)

You just wait until they start to append a list of sponsors of the war ...


----------



## toast (Apr 9, 2003)

[sarcasm]
It wasn't a mistake: they did looked forward to bombing this hotel. *But*_they had an official reason: this hotel was used as a refuge by ... Iraqis !

Startling !
Amazing !
Be confused !
Iraqis hiding in their own buildings ! What a surprise ! Wow !   

Hence, let's do something.
Invade it ? Throw some tear gas in the basements ? Ask journalists to evacuate and then inspect it ?

No. Let's throw a f*cking shell on it. Simpler, duh !

But where ?

On its façade ! Obviously ! It is obvious Iraqis hide on balconies, isn't it, everyone in the US Army knows that !

Hm... those Iraqis are strange... they've got no WMD... no guns... but mics and cams. Plus, they've got this strange Qatari accent...
[/sarcasm]

Limits of bathos and pathos have been reached in one single action. The 'Kurd error' was already of some prestige, but this hotel shelling is a world record.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 10, 2003)

Something to lighten the mood...


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 10, 2003)

More giggles and laughs...


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *[sarcasm]
> It wasn't a mistake: they did looked forward to bombing this hotel. But_they had an official reason: this hotel was used as a refuge by ... Iraqis !
> 
> ...



Well the current official word is that the tank and troops were fired upon by some Iraqi's "seeking refuge" in the building.  You present it as a case of some Iraqi's simply hiding in the building and the tank taking a shot.  Nice to ignore the facts (as we currently know it) to misinform and try to make a "point".

This does bring up an interesting issue in regards to the press and coverage of the war.  It seems that in many ways the press seem to think of this whole thing as a big sporting event.  Be in the middle and call the plays.  Well this is a war.  Weapons are fired, people are killed.  If you are in the middle of it, then you put yourself in the line of fire.  If one side decides to try to use you as a human shield, then there is a good chance you'll get hurt.  This war has been fairly unprecedented in the style of coverage.  Embedded journalist and media present in the middle of a war zone has allowed for a very different look at things.  However, the press is learning that there is a price to be paid for such an intimate look at a war and learning the hard way that simply being a journalist doesn't afford you any special treatment when the bulletts start to fly.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 10, 2003)

It's been a while since I've chimed in on the war around here.  Mostly because I simply don't have the drive to "go at it."

But I would like to say a few things...

Firstly, from what I have seen on TV, the war has truly been a liberation.  The majority of Iraqi people have welcomed coalition forces with open arms (human appendages, not guns.)  It has been very heart-warming to see the Iraqi people so happy!

Secondly, I have been growing more and more unforgiving and antagonistic of those who see no good coming out of the war, and those who so vehemently accuse President Bush of crimes a normal person would attribute to Saddam himself.  George W. Bush does not equal Saddam Insane.

Have a great day, Iraq!  _Let freedom ring._


----------



## SoniCX (Apr 10, 2003)

I dont know but I get tired of all that war stuff. Every day, every channel - war war war - nbc, cnn, abc, fox, ... just too much!

and we dont see the real war pictures anyways. just the pics that they can take b4 they get shot.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 11, 2003)

The Iraqi Information Minister has a cult following on the web here:

http://www.WeLoveTheIraqiInformationMinister.com/

or here:

http://64.39.15.171/

Courtesy of CNN.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SoniCX _
> *and we dont see the real war pictures anyways. just the pics that they can take b4 they get shot. *


I don't know how those pictures would not be "real" war pictures, assuming they're in the middle of it... 

This war has been the most widely publicized war ever.  Live video and everything.  I'm believing what I'm seeing.


----------



## chevy (Apr 11, 2003)

The pictures are real. Are they the whole picture ?


----------



## Ugg (Apr 11, 2003)

A number of news organizations today announced that they are removing their "embedded" reporters and cameramen so that they can get a better view of the war.  The restrictions placed on the reporters have severely limited their ability to "see" what is going on.  Embedding was an amazing success story for the US.  Limiting what was reported on and limiting who the reporters could speak with.  Now that more reporters are free from the controls of the US, maybe we will get a better view of what is actually happening.  

By the way, where did all the US flags come from that the Iraqi people have been waving?  I somehow doubt that Saddam had been stockpiling them.  The US flag has no business being flown in Iraq, except at the US embassy.  Thankfully the military today stated the same and has prohibited the troops from displaying the flag.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *...
> By the way, where did all the US flags come from that the Iraqi people have been waving?  I somehow doubt that Saddam had been stockpiling them.  The US flag has no business being flown in Iraq, except at the US embassy.  Thankfully the military today stated the same and has prohibited the troops from displaying the flag. *



You've intertwined two different issues.  US personel displaying the US flag and Iraqis displaying the US flag.  I assume that troops are not under orders to prevent Iraqis from displaying the flag.  For the most part, the US troops have been doing a fairly good job of this even before this prohibition.  A few notable exceptions of course, but overall, they've been keeping it low key.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *You've intertwined two different issues.  US personel displaying the US flag and Iraqis displaying the US flag.  I assume that troops are not under orders to prevent Iraqis from displaying the flag.  For the most part, the US troops have been doing a fairly good job of this even before this prohibition.  A few notable exceptions of course, but overall, they've been keeping it low key. *



Yes, I did intertwine the two, but I could have made it more clear.  Obviously those flags were handed out by Americans to the Iraqi people, were they soldiers or reporters?  Either way it was nothing more than a photo op. 

The Brits have refrained from such imperialistic shows, why can't the Americans follow suit?


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *Yes, I did intertwine the two, but I could have made it more clear.  Obviously those flags were handed out by Americans to the Iraqi people, were they soldiers or reporters?  Either way it was nothing more than a photo op.
> 
> The Brits have refrained from such imperialistic shows, why can't the Americans follow suit? *



Well one because the US was the driving force (both literally and figuratively) in the war, so two, they have more of a vested interest in making sure that the PR war is also won.  I would assume the troops provided the flags and yes, in many ways it is contrived.  But unless you think the soldiers threatened them unless they acted happy and waved the flag, their positive attitude is the bigger issue, not that they were waving some US flags.  Wars are fought on many fronts, all very important to win.


----------



## doemel (Jul 28, 2006)

MDLarson said:


> Firstly, from what I have seen on TV, the war has truly been a liberation.  The majority of Iraqi people have welcomed coalition forces with open arms (human appendages, not guns.)  It has been very heart-warming to see the Iraqi people so happy!
> 
> Secondly, I have been growing more and more unforgiving and antagonistic of those who see no good coming out of the war, and those who so vehemently accuse President Bush of crimes a normal person would attribute to Saddam himself.  George W. Bush does not equal Saddam Insane.
> 
> Have a great day, Iraq!  _Let freedom ring._




It's been a long time this thread has been dead. With 3 years passed when this discussion was on, I have reread some of it. I was especially startled by your comment, MDLarson. Do youy realize how much off your view of the whole issue was three years ago? I hope you do.

The WMDs have never been found, the pictures of rejoicing Iraqis have obviously been taken from a very slanted angle, Iraq is far from stable, Military, guerilla and civilan casualties are still on the rise, the troops are getting more and more worn off, the costs of the whole adventure are beyond control and GWB loses more and more support (well, not solely just based on the Iraq disaster). Shall I go on? I'm not saying getting rid of Saddam (BTW I hope they don't grant him his wish for execution by bullet but instead hang him like a dog) was a bad thing. It's just that there have been so many mistakes in the whole undertaking that you have to ask youself if the end justifies the means, even more so that this is far from over and a stable and strong government has yet to be established in Iraq.

What do you guys and gals think? We're all 3 years wiser and I wonder what your stance is today.


----------



## fryke (Jul 28, 2006)

That the USA started a war under false pretense and theoretically would need some UN sanctions? Will the president of the USA, who's clearly responsible for these crimes, ever have to stand trial? Or, if that seems rather impossible, will he just say "I'm sorry!" when he leaves the office? I know, I know, probably someone will now again say I'm a little too aggressive myself about this stuff, that I'm an outsider and have no idea about all of this, but let's just get one thing clear here about this: The USA brought war to places _much_ nearer to where I live. "Fight them there so you don't have to fight them here?" Take it in- or outside, buddies, because the world's _my_ bar as well.


----------



## bbloke (Jul 28, 2006)

Wow, I hadn't noticed this thread before and some of the views stated just amazed me...

I essentially agree with what fryke posted, above.  To summarize, I thought, and still think, the invasion of Iraq was nothing to do with "liberation" (*cough*), a dictatorship, WMD, or 9/11.  As I expected, sadly, it has turned out to be quite a mess and I don't see things getting better any time soon.  In fact, I still see hawkish attitudes towards other Middle Eastern countries.  The world is becoming less safe now.

From some of the things I read or hear, I really, really despair at some people's attitudes and, erm, questionable understanding of history and politics.  Now, that said, I should emphasize that, as some posters have already raised, people in any country are still individuals.  So it goes without saying that no one should tar a whole nation with the views expressed by one or two of its citizens.

There's just so much which could be said or cited.  I'll keep this brief, though.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jul 28, 2006)

I think GWB wants a Holy war. Not between Christians and Muslims, but between Muslims and Muslims (Sunnis and Shias). Keep them fighting each other so they eventually implode.

Divide and rule. Worked well for the British in its former Empire days.

To prove my point, why is it that on more than one occasion it is alleged that coalition forces were about to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, but were told to withdraw at the eleventh hour? What's the reason for keeping him alive?


----------



## Mobius Rex (Jul 28, 2006)

The suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people by the Saddam Hussein regime absolutely PALES when compared with the suffering and misery brought upon them by the US from 1991 to the present; from the ten year embargo which destroyed Iraq's acclaimed social services structure, to the devastation of Iraqi towns and villages by US firepower, the wholesale slaughter of civilians, the poisoning of Iraqi land by tons of depleted uranium weapons resulting in an explosive increase in horrible birth defects and cancers......a war crime of staggering proportions, and the intentional creation and encouragement of internecine warfare between Islamic factions(Iraq has no history of such fighting between Islamic groups prior to the US invasion and occupation).
The occupation of Iraq is just one part of an overall "game plan" by the US for domination of the entire near and middle east(the current rape of Lebanon by America's client, Israel, is just one facet).
I recommend reading the book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and It's Geostrategic Imperatives, by Zbigniew Brzezinski: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/04...104-6578716-2602349?s=books&v=glance&n=283155.  It was published in 1998.
Brzizinski was President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, and is a Machiavellian proponent of what is, in fact, an imperialist thesis.
Read it in light of what is currently transpiring in the near/middle east.  It's all chillingly laid out in this book.


----------



## Esquilinho (Jul 28, 2006)

And I recomend the viewing of "Rambo 3":

"Plot Summary for
Rambo III (1988) [from imdb.com]

John Rambo's former Vietnam superior, Colonel Samuel Trautman, has been assigned to lead a mission to help the Mujahedeen rebels who are fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the Buddhist Rambo turns down Trautman's request that Rambo help out. When the mission goes belly up and Trautman is kidnapped and tortured by Russian Colonel Zaysen, Rambo launches a rescue effort and allies himself with the Mujahedeen rebels and gets their help in trying to rescue Trautman from Zaysen."


----------



## ora (Jul 28, 2006)

I watched that recently, reminded me of the time some ex CIA high up admitted teh US had no human assest in Afghanistan prior to the invasion because their guys had all been taliban, who the US had supplyed with them guns to fight the russians.


----------



## doemel (Jul 29, 2006)

Esquilinho said:


> And I recomend the viewing of "Rambo 3":
> 
> "Plot Summary for
> Rambo III (1988) [from imdb.com]
> ...



I actually saw that movie about 3 weeks after 9/11. The irony of it would be too funny hadn't been there so much suffering and death on 9/11.


----------

