Page 4 of 6
Posted: 28 Mar 2003, 18:48
by RicheyJames
Quiff Boy wrote:the Al-Jazeera network dont pull their punches do they?!!?!
and its interesting that they will discuss this is south africa yet glossover it in the uk (and i assume the u.s.)
ummm... did you miss my post quiffy? robert fisk is the independent's middle east correspondent and has been for years. the article pointed out by hal is printed in today's independent right here in dear old blighty.
furthermore the indy gave over virtually the entire front page yesterday to fisk's account of the al-shaab missile strike which killed at least fifteen iraqi civillians.
the war is not being "glossed over" by large sections of the british media (seen the front page of the mirror lately?) although obviously the usual suspects are printing the same old jingoistic bollocks that blackens the name of journalism on a regular basis...
more robert fisk
the indy
the mirror
Posted: 28 Mar 2003, 19:01
by Quiff Boy
RicheyJames wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:the Al-Jazeera network dont pull their punches do they?!!?!
and its interesting that they will discuss this is south africa yet glossover it in the uk (and i assume the u.s.)
ummm... did you miss my post quiffy? robert fisk is the independent's middle east correspondent and has been for years. the article pointed out by hal is printed in today's independent right here in dear old blighty.
furthermore the indy gave over virtually the entire front page yesterday to fisk's account of the al-shaab missile strike which killed at least fifteen iraqi civillians.
the war is not being "glossed over" by large sections of the british media (seen the front page of the mirror lately?) although obviously the usual suspects are printing the same old jingoistic bollocks that blackens the name of journalism on a regular basis...
more robert fisk
the indy
the mirror
oops! sorry!
Posted: 28 Mar 2003, 23:05
by cocoamix
Just your friendly neighborhood reminder regarding Dubbya:
Many, many Americans (myself among them) absolutely cannot stand the f**ker and wish he would choke to death on another pretzel.
thank you for your time.
Posted: 29 Mar 2003, 01:59
by dead stars
Black Shuk wrote:dead inside wrote:
Like Mário Soares said, this war is a big cradle of terrorists.
Don't be surprised if one of these kids - now children - is the next to pilot a plane against the Pentagon (let's hope it's only the Pentagon!...).
Then don't come saying "oh lord, why us, what have we done, blah, blah, blah..."
And let's hope it's not the Big Ben, the Parliament, Buckingham Palace...
That's too close for my likings. You rip what you sow.
Not taking action in Iraq because we're scared of possible terrorist ramifications is, in my opinion, a very cowardly attitude. If we're all ****-scared of future terrorist atrocities, surely it means Bin Laden and his buddies have won?
You didn't get any of what I've said, did you?
I'm not scared. It's America that should be scared because America is growing TODAY the terrorists of TOMORROW. "Serves you right" explains it better?
The reason for not taking action in Iraq should be because all diplomatic ways had not worked - which didn't happen - not because Bush already had troupes in Kowait and money had already been spent and industry wants control over the territory.
and anyway, nobody knows what terrorist ramifications this war will have-
Really? And me thinking it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out...
(Some people are so eyes-closed...)
Getting rid of Saddam will not necessarily cause terrorists to 'multiply tenfold', as people seem to assume - that is just anti-war propaganda designed to scare people into opposing the war.
Destroying people's houses and belongings and PEOPLE's LIVES will cause tremendous rage and resentment. Against who? Though question, isn't it?
Maybe, just maybe, against the country that did it? Just a guess, of course...
As for "propaganda designed to scare people into opposing the war", I guess there's no better than watching a speech with Bush and Blair together spitting lies left and right and desgusting the entire world.
This time the world is watching what America is doing in Iraq. There's no better propaganda than that.
People aren't scared of the war. People are disgusted of the war.
STOP IT FOR GOD'S SAKE!
*very, very mad*
Posted: 29 Mar 2003, 06:26
by hallucienate
cocoamix wrote:Just your friendly neighborhood reminder regarding Dubbya:
Many, many Americans (myself among them) absolutely cannot stand the **** and wish he would choke to death on another pretzel.
thank you for your time.
I understand that only 17% of your registered voters voted for him, I also understand that another 17.0000000000001% voted against him, what gets me is that the rest of you didn't bother to vote at all.
Are there any national campaigns to promote voting in you next elections?
Posted: 29 Mar 2003, 12:39
by Black Shuck
dead inside wrote:
Like Mário Soares said, this war is a big cradle of terrorists.
Don't be surprised if one of these kids - now children - is the next to pilot a plane against the Pentagon (let's hope it's only the Pentagon!...).
Then don't come saying "oh lord, why us, what have we done, blah, blah, blah..."
I'm not scared. It's America that should be scared because America is growing TODAY the terrorists of TOMORROW. "Serves you right" explains it better?
Look, a lot of people are pissed off with George Bush right now (I despise the guy) But this attitude that America somehow deserves to be attacked by terrorists, that it will 'reap what it sows' is very frightening- Any one who thinks this has the same mindset as the terrorists themselves.
The co-alition forces are not evil, callous baby-killing scum, they are ordinary people no morally inferior to you or me, they are not indiscriminately killing as many civilians as possibe, they are trying to kill as few as possible. Yes, one Iraqi life lost is a tragedy, but thousands are dying every year due to Saddam, for example the marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq who are simply not being given any food by Saddam's regime because he has a grudge against them.
And you don't seem to mind if the pentagon gets destroyed- I guess the thousands who earn a s**t wage doing admin work in the pentagon don't deserve to live.
dead inside wrote: You didn't get any of what I've said, did you?
And you didn't get what I said! Bush and Blair are risking the lives of their armed forces to liberate the Iraqis from a despicable man. Nearly every other Arab leader, and most Iraqis, wants this f**ker to go, he DOES threaten world peace. We cannot think "Let's just leave the Iraqis to suffer because I am scared of bombs" - that is a bad (but understandable) attitude.
And It is true that no-one knows what will happen with regards to terrorism in the future- helping bring stability to the middle east will surely mean less terrorists? Bush and Blair have made it clear that the Israel/Palestine crises is next on their agenda.
dead inside wrote:The reason for not taking action in Iraq should be because all diplomatic ways had not worked - which didn't happen
But they did try! they tried everything they could! If you have a better idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I'm sure Bush would love to hear it.
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 01:09
by dead stars
Black Shuk wrote:dead inside wrote:
Like Mário Soares said, this war is a big cradle of terrorists.
Don't be surprised if one of these kids - now children - is the next to pilot a plane against the Pentagon (let's hope it's only the Pentagon!...).
Then don't come saying "oh lord, why us, what have we done, blah, blah, blah..."
I'm not scared. It's America that should be scared because America is growing TODAY the terrorists of TOMORROW. "Serves you right" explains it better?
Look, a lot of people are pissed off with George Bush right now (I despise the guy) But this attitude that America somehow deserves to be attacked by terrorists, that it will 'reap what it sows' is very frightening- Any one who thinks this has the same mindset as the terrorists themselves.
I knew you'd say that. Anyone who tries to explain why America is the favourite terrorist target is a terrotist too.
"If you're not with us you're against us." I'm so glad I live in a democratic country!
The co-alition forces are not evil, callous baby-killing scum, they are ordinary people no morally inferior to you or me, they are not indiscriminately killing as many civilians as possibe, they are trying to kill as few as possible.
Oh, thank God, I'm so reassured now! "As few as possible"... What about NONE? What about undermining Sadam's regime through diplomatic means? Yes, it takes longer, but democracy takes a long time to grow. Imposed democracy is no less than disguised dictatorship - like what's happening in Afganistan.
Yes, one Iraqi life lost is a tragedy, but thousands are dying every year due to Saddam, for example the marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq who are simply not being given any food by Saddam's regime because he has a grudge against them.
Not to mention the terrible restrictions imposed to Iraq after the first Gulf war, by us "free western countries"...
And you don't seem to mind if the pentagon gets destroyed
No, I really don't. It's a military facility just as important as any of Sadam's palaces although I'm sure Americans think it's more important because it's American, the same way one American life worths how many?... other lives?
- I guess the thousands who earn a **** wage doing admin work in the pentagon don't deserve to live.
Colateral damage is an expression invented by Americans. Let's hope civil losses are "as few as possible", like you said yourself...
Yeah, it doesn't sound so good when "as few as possible" are Americans, does it?
dead inside wrote: You didn't get any of what I've said, did you?
And you didn't get what I said! Bush and Blair are risking the lives of their armed forces to liberate the Iraqis from a despicable man.
What "liberation", gosh, do you really believe it?!
In these times I remember East Timor, a nation repressed by Indonesia for 3 decades and the States not willing to "liberate" s*** because the regime had Australian support, and if it wasn't for Portugal lobbying the United Nations the massacres there would go on today still. When finally the Sates gave their "kind" permission to intervene, Australia became the saviour at the eyes of the world. Big propaganda, you see? We've done the work, they take the glory. The States couldn't care less, that nation of freedom fighters! Oh please!
Nearly every other Arab leader, and most Iraqis, wants this **** to go, he DOES threaten world peace.
You'll see what happens to world peace after this preposterous imposition of the law of the strongest!
We cannot think "Let's just leave the Iraqis to suffer because I am scared of bombs" - that is a bad (but understandable) attitude.
I didn't say that.
And It is true that no-one knows what will happen with regards to terrorism in the future- helping bring stability to the middle east will surely mean less terrorists?
What will happen is the States creating another puppet to rule Iraq (like they supported Sadam at first...) till this new puppet goes out of hand and there it starts again. On to world domination.
One day it has to stop. The United States have to realise no one has given them permission to police the Earth.
Bush and Blair have made it clear that the Israel/Palestine crises is next on their agenda.
So, they'll free Palestine of that awful man Sharon?
dead inside wrote:The reason for not taking action in Iraq should be because all diplomatic ways had not worked - which didn't happen
But they did try! they tried everything they could! If you have a better idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I'm sure Bush would love to hear it
That's where you are mistaken. Bush wants to hear "boost the economy" and "the oil guys are happy".
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 06:32
by zigeunerweisen
Ed Rhombus wrote:zigeunerweisen wrote:I'm all for killing all the capitalist pigs fron this earth, i do truly hate them all, and i'm not even a left winger, but the truth is, i need to eat and for that i need money.
Killing everyone because you need money?
This differs from your definition of capitalism how?
No no, i'm afraid i wasn't clear.
First, i don't want to kill anyone, that was figuratively speaking of course. I meant, i hate capitalist pigs just like the next guy, but the truth is, i'm a capitalist myself. Well, not really, i don't want to have all the money in the world and i don't want to exploit millions to get it, but i do need (and want) enough money to be able to live well and without worries, that's what i meant.
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 06:56
by zigeunerweisen
Black Shuk wrote:
Not taking action in Iraq because we're scared of possible terrorist ramifications is, in my opinion, a very cowardly attitude. If we're all ****-scared of future terrorist atrocities, surely it means Bin Laden and his buddies have won?
and anyway, nobody knows what terrorist ramifications this war will have- Getting rid of Saddam will not necessarily cause terrorists to 'multiply tenfold', as people seem to assume - that is just anti-war propaganda designed to scare people into opposing the war.
Oh, c'mon. People are not against the war because of possible future terrorist attacks as you seem to imply, but because there is no valid reason to have it. This war is about, controlling the second largest oil reserve in the world (isn't it a coincidence that Bush is an oil tycoon and that the Bush family has ties to all sorts of oil deals?); boosting american economy (all those companies getting in line, all happy to be able to be the first ones to get to Iraq and start rebuilding the place, which was destroyed by their government in the first place, by the way, what a coincidence that Cheney, the dick, was a CEO or something until last year of one of those companies), and the fact that american economy is going through a hard time; helping out the ever friend Israel and the sionist dream of creating the great Israel, being Iraq the only possible future threat to Israel in the middle east; f*cking with european economy and union (which they already acomplished), is it a coincidence that Saddam was about to ask the OPEC to start using the euro instead of dollars in business transactions? Is it a coincidence that business around the world was starting to be done with euros instead of dollars? is it a coincidence that the euro was getting stronger against the dollar?; And every so often american generals need to test their wonderful weapons in real fire situations and see how well they perform; and last, but not least, world domination needs to start somewhere doesn't it? Iraq is the perfect target right now. Siria is going to be the next one to be attacked, remember this.
I can't really believe people actually believe that this war is about bringing freedom to Iraq and the iraqui people adn helping the people. Do you really believe all this is being done in the name of democracy and liberty? I'm sure you're smarter than that. Countries do things out of interest, not kindness, much less the USA.
And yes, you might not believe it now, but what the americans will get with all this is a new generation of america haters willing to bomb themselves up to kill as many americans as they can.
I don't know wat kind of news stations you're watching, but even today i saw on portuguese tv an iraqui men being interviewd because of a missile that destroyed a residential civil area, with her baby girl in her arms saying "i'm going to america to kill the american childs, like they killed mine", see? It's not pretty is it?
Americans thought this would be like a movie apparently, going there, getting in, getting Saddam, control everything, and things would be great in a few hours and everyone would love them. Do you really believe the muslims want americans controlling their land?
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 07:03
by zigeunerweisen
dead inside wrote:
Destroying people's houses and belongings and PEOPLE's LIVES will cause tremendous rage and resentment. Against who? Though question, isn't it?
Maybe, just maybe, against the country that did it? Just a guess, of course...
As for "propaganda designed to scare people into opposing the war", I guess there's no better than watching a speech with Bush and Blair together spitting lies left and right and desgusting the entire world.
This time the world is watching what America is doing in Iraq. There's no better propaganda than that.
People aren't scared of the war. People are disgusted of the war.
STOP IT FOR GOD'S SAKE!
*very, very mad*
Exactly, agreed
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 07:05
by zigeunerweisen
dead inside wrote:Black Shuk wrote:dead inside wrote:
Like Mário Soares said, this war is a big cradle of terrorists.
Don't be surprised if one of these kids - now children - is the next to pilot a plane against the Pentagon (let's hope it's only the Pentagon!...).
Then don't come saying "oh lord, why us, what have we done, blah, blah, blah..."
I'm not scared. It's America that should be scared because America is growing TODAY the terrorists of TOMORROW. "Serves you right" explains it better?
Look, a lot of people are pissed off with George Bush right now (I despise the guy) But this attitude that America somehow deserves to be attacked by terrorists, that it will 'reap what it sows' is very frightening- Any one who thinks this has the same mindset as the terrorists themselves.
I knew you'd say that. Anyone who tries to explain why America is the favourite terrorist target is a terrotist too.
"If you're not with us you're against us." I'm so glad I live in a democratic country!
The co-alition forces are not evil, callous baby-killing scum, they are ordinary people no morally inferior to you or me, they are not indiscriminately killing as many civilians as possibe, they are trying to kill as few as possible.
Oh, thank God, I'm so reassured now! "As few as possible"... What about NONE? What about undermining Sadam's regime through diplomatic means? Yes, it takes longer, but democracy takes a long time to grow. Imposed democracy is no less than disguised dictatorship - like what's happening in Afganistan.
Yes, one Iraqi life lost is a tragedy, but thousands are dying every year due to Saddam, for example the marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq who are simply not being given any food by Saddam's regime because he has a grudge against them.
Not to mention the terrible restrictions imposed to Iraq after the first Gulf war, by us "free western countries"...
And you don't seem to mind if the pentagon gets destroyed
No, I really don't. It's a military facility just as important as any of Sadam's palaces although I'm sure Americans think it's more important because it's American, the same way one American life worths how many?... other lives?
- I guess the thousands who earn a **** wage doing admin work in the pentagon don't deserve to live.
Colateral damage is an expression invented by Americans. Let's hope civil losses are "as few as possible", like you said yourself...
Yeah, it doesn't sound so good when "as few as possible" are Americans, does it?
dead inside wrote: You didn't get any of what I've said, did you?
And you didn't get what I said! Bush and Blair are risking the lives of their armed forces to liberate the Iraqis from a despicable man.
What "liberation", gosh, do you really believe it?!
In these times I remember East Timor, a nation repressed by Indonesia for 3 decades and the States not willing to "liberate" s*** because the regime had Australian support, and if it wasn't for Portugal lobbying the United Nations the massacres there would go on today still. When finally the Sates gave their "kind" permission to intervene, Australia became the saviour at the eyes of the world. Big propaganda, you see? We've done the work, they take the glory. The States couldn't care less, that nation of freedom fighters! Oh please!
Nearly every other Arab leader, and most Iraqis, wants this **** to go, he DOES threaten world peace.
You'll see what happens to world peace after this preposterous imposition of the law of the strongest!
We cannot think "Let's just leave the Iraqis to suffer because I am scared of bombs" - that is a bad (but understandable) attitude.
I didn't say that.
And It is true that no-one knows what will happen with regards to terrorism in the future- helping bring stability to the middle east will surely mean less terrorists?
What will happen is the States creating another puppet to rule Iraq (like they supported Sadam at first...) till this new puppet goes out of hand and there it starts again. On to world domination.
One day it has to stop. The United States have to realise no one has given them permission to police the Earth.
Bush and Blair have made it clear that the Israel/Palestine crises is next on their agenda.
So, they'll free Palestine of that awful man Sharon?
dead inside wrote:The reason for not taking action in Iraq should be because all diplomatic ways had not worked - which didn't happen
But they did try! they tried everything they could! If you have a better idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I'm sure Bush would love to hear it
That's where you are mistaken. Bush wants to hear "boost the economy" and "the oil guys are happy".
Di, if you weren't a frog, with spider legs and Bush's head i would kiss you, i agree on everything you said.
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 07:14
by zigeunerweisen
And may i add, i'm not against americans. Americans seem to take things very personally, but they shouldn't. I, as i'm sure most of the world, don't have anything against americans, we're all just people, we're all alike. I consider americans as good and bad as anyone else. What people hate is your government, not you. You don't have to feel like the world is against you, i know there are many americans against Bush and his good fellas, Donald duck, err, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the dick and Rice and all the others lurking in the shadows.
I'm afraid sometimes that americans gather around their leaders because they feel they have no other alternative, because the world is against them already. Don't feel like that. Open your minds, don't feed on all the propaganda and on the "you're anti patriot and anti american if you don't agree with your government" brainwashing crap. that's how dictatorships arise.
People that are against america's policies are not with Saddam either, don't think that because we don't like your government we like Saddam, no, if i had the power to do so, he would be gone a long time ago.
I wish no more people would die, not american and british soldiers, that are not to blame, they are only following orders, not iraquis, not anyone. And please, to the american troops, try not to kill any more brits, they are your allies, remember?
Anyway, i'm sleepy, i don't know if this made any sense, oh well
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 13:11
by Black Shuck
Hey, dead inside and zigeunerweisen
, I respect all your arguments, but i do find it bizarre that people who are against the war are willing to believe any old conspiracy theory gibberish;
You are judging Bush and the co-alition efforts too soon- you haven't met George Bush, you don't know he is an evil man, I thought people were innocent until proven guilty? The war in Iraq is not just a case of black and white (but no war ever is), there all kinds of murky motives for this war, but unquestioningly believing the garbage you can find on all the laughable anti-war/anti-Bush websites etc. is just as stupid as blindly believing Bush and Blair.
I know you think I am being naive, but I think it is anti-war protestors shouting "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" , "BUSH SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES" etc. who are being naive. Why should you believe anti-war bollocks any more than you believe Bush and Blair? it doesn't make sense. Yes, Blair.Bush may have hidden agendas, but how do you know anti-war demonstration organisers don't also have hidden agendas?
This war is not going to stop until Saddam is ousted, no amount of protesting will hinder it in any way, we will have to wait and see what happens in the Middle East.
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 16:14
by Black Shuck
dead inside wrote: The United States have to realise no one has given them permission to police the Earth.
Can I just add (then I'll shut up, I've ranted long enough) that I despise George Bush and his republican party, and I hate Tony Blair (though I admire his courage during this crises), and I am very worried that America can do what it wants when it wants. but the simple fact is that America IS ALREADY the world's police, it has been ever since the cold war ended, and nobody can do a thing to stop them- even the UN, who opposed taking immediate military action, couldn't stop George Bush.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they are wrong to finally get rid of this evil tryant. It is a joke to suggest that diplomacy can work with a madman like Saddam, and I am sick of the corrupt fat cats in the UN who sit behind their desks and are willing to do a thing to help the Iraqi people. War is literally the worst thing imaginable, and one life lost is one too many, but unfortunatley war is sometimes the only answer.
And the deaths of the innocents in this terrible war is the fault of only one person- Saddam Hussein. He was ordered 12 years ago in the interests of world peace to destroy his weapons, and now he is sending his hopelessly inadequate troops to their deaths just to delay the coalition forces' inevitable victory. It boils my blood to think that this descpicable man has been allowed by the UN pencil-pushers to inflict so much misery for so long. And the only safe person in Iraq is Saddam himself- he will cut a deal with the co-alition and live out his days on a tropical paradise somewhere. Bastard
Posted: 30 Mar 2003, 20:22
by karin
You are judging Bush and the co-alition efforts too soon- you haven't met George Bush, you don't know he is an evil man, I thought people were innocent until proven guilty? The war in Iraq is not just a case of black and white (but no war ever is), there all kinds of murky motives for this war, but unquestioningly believing the garbage you can find on all the laughable anti-war/anti-Bush websites etc. is just as stupid as blindly believing Bush and Blair.
What about instincts ? When Bush was in his presidential race with Gore I said- if that bloke gets in (which he did with much strange manipulation of chads) he'll lead us all into WW3. We wouldn't be in this position if Clinton was at the helm. Clinton is a statesmanlike diplomat, Bush is a provincial, insular twerp.
Posted: 31 Mar 2003, 03:19
by dead stars
zigeunerweisen wrote:
I can't really believe people actually believe that this war is about bringing freedom to Iraq and the iraqui people adn helping the people. Do you really believe all this is being done in the name of democracy and liberty? I'm sure you're smarter than that. Countries do things out of interest, not kindness, much less the USA.
1) They're under massive propaganda
2) They play "follow the leader" since children
3) They're considered anti-patriot if they don't
4) They've got their friends fighting there
5) They've censored media
However, just to prove I'm not biased from any of sides, France, Russia, Germany and China had their economical interests too, and that's why they were against this intervention - not because their high standards of
"morality".
And yes, you might not believe it now, but what the americans will get with all this is a new generation of america haters willing to bomb themselves up to kill as many americans as they can.
And they'll increase islamic fanatism to a point that if our country ever gets attacked I'll blame the States first - the terrorists second.
What the States are doing in Iraq is state terrorism - and I'm so sad to see the UK, a nation I learnt to admire, getting down in s*** like this.
However, seems the coalition is not as healthy as the beggining. Yowsa!
I don't know wat kind of news stations you're watching, but even today i saw on portuguese tv an iraqui men being interviewd because of a missile that destroyed a residential civil area, with her baby girl in her arms saying "i'm going to america to kill the american childs, like they killed mine", see? It's not pretty is it?
We get to see that but I doubt people in America are allowed to.
In fact, Iraqis are just defending themselves with everything they've got. They're not pleased they've been invaded, they're not welcoming the coalition as liberators, and the coalition is very puzzled about it: why don't they like us?
Well, if I arrived home after a bombing and I found my house and my few belongings (including my precious Sisters collection) in smithereens, yes, I'd take a machine gun and kill as many bastards that did it as possible.
Posted: 31 Mar 2003, 03:25
by dead stars
zigeunerweisen wrote:
Di, if you weren't a frog, with spider legs and Bush's head i would kiss you, i agree on everything you said.
The frog is demon Bael (Baal) and I think it looks like Bush.
It isn't strange we agree for we have a quite neutral point of observation from both sides of the war and the freedom to exercice our critixc reasoning.
Meaning, and I'm sure they don't know it, our goverment had the nerve to support this war (although 71% of us don't), and we're allowed to speak as bad as we want about the government without being called anti-patriots or terrorists, something very difficult to understand to an American mind.
And I'm sure none of us is a patriot, am I right?
But I tell you something, Zig, we underestimate ourselves. the more I look abroad the more I believe some nations deserve a lesson of democracy.
Posted: 31 Mar 2003, 03:30
by dead stars
Black Shuk wrote:Hey, dead inside and zigeunerweisen
, I respect all your arguments, but i do find it bizarre that people who are against the war are willing to believe any old conspiracy theory gibberish;
These are facts. Not X-files.
You are judging Bush and the co-alition efforts too soon- you haven't met George Bush, you don't know he is an evil man, I thought people were innocent until proven guilty?
(really, I've no more words)
Yes, Blair.Bush may have hidden agendas, but how do you know anti-war demonstration organisers don't also have hidden agendas?
Like what? Taking over the world to fill it with strawberry fields forever?
This war is not going to stop until Saddam is ousted, no amount of protesting will hinder it in any way, we will have to wait and see what happens in the Middle East.
The barrel will finally blow.
Posted: 31 Mar 2003, 03:39
by dead stars
Black Shuk wrote:
but the simple fact is that America IS ALREADY the world's police, it has been ever since the cold war ended, and nobody can do a thing to stop them- even the UN, who opposed taking immediate military action, couldn't stop George Bush.
That's why I believe the States are a bigger threat than Sadam Hussein. And I'm not the only one. And this is bad. This is very bad. Before me, David Bowie already said "I'm afraid of Americans". Not being original.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they are wrong to finally get rid of this evil tryant.
However, this evil tyrant isn't the reason why they are attacking Iraq. They wouldn't bother about any tyrant if there wasn't oil involved. That's what we're trying to tell you.
BTW, Tibet?........
And the deaths of the innocents in this terrible war is the fault of only one person- Saddam Hussein. He was ordered 12 years ago in the interests of world peace to destroy his weapons, and now he is sending his hopelessly inadequate troops to their deaths just to delay the coalition forces' inevitable victory.
Wait a minute, if your country was invaded and bombed by a foreign army would you seat quiet in your sofa instead? Just think about it.
What the States are doing, not giving ENOUGH chances to diplomacy, is TURNING SADAM INTO A MARTYR!
That's what will happen if they have the misfortune of killing him. Sadam will become a martyr for the islam. It's time Americans would realise how islam works - but why bother, it's a different culture, right?
So turning a dictator into a martyr is the most stupid thing anyone can do. And the States are losing that war - worldwide.
Maybe they realise this too late as usual, one day something forces the States to look further then their bellybutton...
Posted: 01 Apr 2003, 00:47
by MrEddy
This really has been an outpouring of oppinion! It is interesting to see the admixture of discussions about capitalism with those regarding the current conflict. I suppose myheartland will naturally host cynics of capitalism.
From my personal perspective, the war appears entirely unnessesary. I had faith in the UN as the answer: and, were the organisation respected, that a satisfactory solutions would be found. It is perhaps the case that the political/social situation in Iraq justifies some intrusive military action. Equally, this has been the case for over a decade with little sleep lost.
Usually I believe that people are not so concerned with exploitation or even with bloodshed. These things occour persistantly and (forgive me RicheyJames, Ziggy,DI,...,) it is not the case that people care. I cannot believe the media is at fault here- the american situation is extreme- in that the media will sell as a product exactly what it is people are interested in. The current situation, w.r.t public oppinion, is exceptional; I can't help but suspect that Blair expected little opposition.
In this instance, I feel the shame exsists that both Europe and the UN have been so substantially damaged by our Prime Minister's misguided commitment to the (megalomaniac) Bush. What hope is there that the future will see any kind of global cooperation?
Posted: 01 Apr 2003, 12:43
by paint it black
Posted: 02 Apr 2003, 01:04
by dead stars
paint it black wrote:MrEddy wrote:This really has been an outpouring ....color]
do you have any idea how difficult it is to read red font on a black background
Yes, it's difficult. I usually highlight it. Gotta preserve my eyes...
2. Bush stating that he had a divine right to sort Saddam becuase God told him too. That'll be the omnipresent God looking after the good folks of Iraq then
OK, where did you read this? Show evidence! No I don't believe it. See, I'm not as biased against Budh as you think! I need to see it written somewhere.
3. The wrong type of war. They're not playing by our rules -
OK, this I've heard too. Of course, first thing generals should have thought - if militaries had any thinking capacity of course... - is to understand (know) the enemy.
In western societies with a jewish/christian tradition deeply rooted, suicidals are condemned and not so long ago weren't even allowed to be buried in sacred cemetery ground. Islam, on the other hand, considers a suicidal for war effects as a hero, a martyr and deserving of greatest glories in Heaven. They really believe it.
Which isn't new, folks. Japanese kamikazes during the World War II believed in immediate reincarnation.
Posted: 02 Apr 2003, 21:59
by paint it black
@ DI
search on bush, iraq, divine, god ....... that sort of thing and you'll find loads but here are two i liked
one comments from around the world
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/926.cfm
one the actual state of the nation speech transcript
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 29-11.html
the war game thing has a thread somewhere in HL. I think it was called
joshua - after the film
Posted: 02 Apr 2003, 22:05
by paint it black
paint it black wrote:@ DI
the war game thing has a thread somewhere in HL. I think it was called
joshua - after the film
http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=980 
Posted: 03 Apr 2003, 13:20
by MrEddy
I wasn't aware the italic red was so hard to read; I geuss that explaines why non of you ever use it!
I'll refrain in the future.
)