Iraq is a political subject.
Iraq, again
-
First, I apologize for the ‘ramble’ on my part … was repeatedly called away … poor excuse … should have used ‘smooth flow of thought check’ (advanced spell check…get it!)
F_alk, I’ll give you a few points …
A) I did jump early on the WMD … barrels appear to be pesticide and rockets contents to be tested yet …
B) the following statement, unclear as to which war, has confused us both … “Once upon a time most countries agreed not to attack Germany. What if they had stuck to it?”,
C) ‘i strongly would recommend to look for better sources.’ Please, recommend 2 or 3! Thank you,
D) You made a point here … I said, “Even the US…” and you replied, ‘After a German urged the Gov’t… and it was emigrants who were the prominent heads working on the bomb, from Germany, Italy, Hungary (AFAIR).’ Please, do not assume that I was giving the US full credit for everything.Now for a little clarification …
- “how many years … how many resolutions … UN and US tried diplomacy,” and your answer is … ,
- Germany is not in the same region (on the same continent) as France? Are they not both part of the EU? Guess I need to get a new World Atlas ,
- should you have said, ‘Politics does not equal anti-Americanism?’,
- please, note the word “appears” in the WMD statement,
- regarding your ‘economics of the US are not an issue’ comment, note the line “Capitalist economies do not function well with the threat of terrorism…” ,
- as to interests … what world leader, of any regard in history, did not look out for his/her country’s own interests. Don’t we all hope that those are his/her interests? Then,
- “safety and security” related to threats and violence against the nation and citizens.
8 )‘WWI’ … a good example of stupid 'joining or following larger agreements, - the old ‘compare rutabagas to rhubarb,’ from your perspective, is seen by me as “oranges to tangerines” … not perfect , but many comparisons have differnces,
- ‘Are all of you such cowards?’ I do not speak for everyone(everyone breathes a sigh of relief.)and I won’t take that as an insult … just a sign of your loss of patience with me,
- ‘Xi, could you do me a favor and not vote until you changed your sources of information?’ What is your problem? (see C, above) You agreed with me,
- ‘we don’t see it that way, as we just see that they seem to be “against us”.’ I’ve seen it both ways, but have only met 3 Mullahs(not a large Muslim population here),
- ‘why should France or Germany spend a single Euro?’ Diplomacy! ,
- ‘See how the US tries to makes friends.’ This was after a few of our soldiers were blown away by ‘innocent civilians’ who got close and went BOOM!
In conclusion …
@F_k:‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
This looks like the start of a new forum …
@F_k:To be proven, plus: it was a pure terror attack, like the terror bombings Germany had to suffer. So, to safe your soldiers, you get back to use terrorists means? Afraid that an American could actually die while fighting for his ideals?
this one, too, with lots of quibbling over semantics …
@X:"Bush may have to bear the burden of taking the next step in military defense … the preemptive attack for a truly just cause, not for false reasons as has often been done in the past. "
’ “May have” sounds like “hasn’t done yet”… that would imply that even this war is not for a “truly just cause”.’An ignorant nationalist seeking enlightenment …
-
if i may . . .
Now for a little clarification …
- “how many years … how many resolutions … UN and US tried diplomacy,” and your answer is … ,
not enough years, not enough resolutions, not enough appropriate managment of the situation, too many bombs
- Germany is not in the same region (on the same continent) as France? Are they not both part of the EU? Guess I need to get a new World Atlas ,
kind of a bit of a non-sequitor, no? I mean they are on the same continent as Russia and Spain, and save for a small strait of water, of Britain too.
- should you have said, ‘Politics does not equal anti-Americanism?’,
it really does not matter. It appears that any criticism of American policy equals anti-Americanism. I criticize Canadian politicians daily, does this make me anti-Canadian?
- please, note the word “appears” in the WMD statement,
(lost me here)
- regarding your ‘economics of the US are not an issue’ comment, note the line “Capitalist economies do not function well with the threat of terrorism…” ,
well, i think that the threat of terrorism may well have been substantially more remote with fewer self-serving actions in the mid-east. I think that if America had fostered a different relationship and performed differently with regards to many countries in the middle east, the threat of terrorism might be less. Also consider that many that support and fund terrorism are not so much Iraq as those in Saudi Arabia (America’s ally).
- as to interests … what world leader, of any regard in history, did not look out for his/her country’s own interests. Don’t we all hope that those are his/her interests? Then,
- “safety and security” related to threats and violence against the nation and citizens.
of course cleaning up one’s mess is also sometimes in their interests. The thing was there was little in the way of apparent threats to safety and security post 9/11. In fact, i would argue that America just created a whole new problem with this invasion business.
8 )‘WWI’ … a good example of stupid 'joining or following larger agreements,
9) the old ‘compare rutabagas to rhubarb,’ from your perspective, is seen by me as “oranges to tangerines” … not perfect , but many comparisons have differnces,gotta’ agree with F_alk on this one. completely different situations do not make for a good metaphor.
- ‘Are all of you such cowards?’ I do not speak for everyone(everyone breathes a sigh of relief.)and I won’t take that as an insult … just a sign of your loss of patience with me,
cowards? sometimes it takes a stronger man to walk away from a fight and find a peaceful solution. Are all of you such lunatics? Obviously not. Just because people support a policy of invading another country pre-emptively does not make them lunatics. Personally i’m afraid of very little in this world, and i’m not afraid to die. I am afraid to kill someone else tho’, especially an innocent person.
In conclusion …
@F_k:‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
i havn’t seen it yet, however from what i’ve read in the news etc. it doesn’t sound like it’s missed its mark by THAT much.
This looks like the start of a new forum …
@F_k:To be proven, plus: it was a pure terror attack, like the terror bombings Germany had to suffer. So, to safe your soldiers, you get back to use terrorists means? Afraid that an American could actually die while fighting for his ideals?
this one, too, with lots of quibbling over semantics …
this is actually a fair point.
how is a person sacrificing their life (i.e. a suicide bomber) much different than the one who bombs from the air with only the risk of their life (and a pretty narrow one that was too, unless you were flying an apache helicoptor). -
how is a person sacrificing their life (i.e. a suicide bomber) much different than the one who bombs from the air with only the risk of their life (and a pretty narrow one that was too, unless you were flying an apache helicoptor).
Please tell me you are not drawing a comparison between the suicide bombers and our soldiers. :evil: :evil: :evil:
However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of conversation, I’ll pretend you’re not:
Generally, suicide bombers target CIVILIANS. Soldiers (at least ours anyways) are fighting against other soldiers, and there’s something vastly about military vs. military as oppossed to military vs. innocents.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
how is a person sacrificing their life (i.e. a suicide bomber) much different than the one who bombs from the air with only the risk of their life (and a pretty narrow one that was too, unless you were flying an apache helicoptor).
Please tell me you are not drawing a comparison between the suicide bombers and our soldiers. :evil: :evil: :evil:
However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of conversation, I’ll pretend you’re not:
Generally, suicide bombers target CIVILIANS. Soldiers (at least ours anyways) are fighting against other soldiers, and there’s something vastly about military vs. military as oppossed to military vs. innocents.
ok ok, i will for your sake ignore the fact that Iraqi suicide bombers have been blowing themselves up at American army sites and that American bombers have been blowing up both soldiers AND civilians.
obviously there is no comparison. -
Even though CC was faster than me again :)…. i will add some points.
@Xi:
C) ‘i strongly would recommend to look for better sources.’ Please, recommend 2 or 3! Thank you,
Have a look at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=EurostatEurostat has only limited data for free, the other might be more fruitful.
Or else, google it :)…… Germany has between 2-4 million (official: about 3 million, less than 0.5 million of them eligible to vote), France in most sources has less muslim inhabitants than Germany.
But even if there are more: In the paragraph were you mentioned islam, you started with “fundamentalist muslim” and then proclaimed that about 1 in 10 of all muslims would be fundamentalist. The actual and official number for islamists in germany is less than 60,000, less than 2% of the muslims.
Remembering your numbers (8 million muslims, 1-2 million voters, 0.8 million islamists) … well, you called yours facts, right? Please, give me your source. My source probably won’t help you, coming from the german webpage of the Bundesministerium für Inneres.- Germany is not in the same region (on the same continent) as France? Are they not both part of the EU? Guess I need to get a new World Atlas ,
They are in the same region. A region is not a country. The EU is not a country. I know, you will say this is me picking on semantics. But then, i don’t expect you to understand everything i write as i meant but as i have written. BB and i had some more problems with each other on that.
- please, note the word “appears” in the WMD statement,
Oh, i see. I will quote you quickly:
@Xi:
Iraq - Which it now appears has WMD
I must admit, the two verbs confused me into picking the one that you wanted as the infinitive (right word? unconjugated verb…)
Yours sentence allows two interpretations, and i picked the wrong one.
Maybe you see why i pick on semantics, because such things happen less.- as to interests … what world leader, of any regard in history, did not look out for his/her country’s own interests. Don’t we all hope that those are his/her interests? Then,
- “safety and security” related to threats and violence against the nation and citizens.
Ok, i hope that (and history has shown some of those) world leaders don’t look out for their countries interest on all costs. Following hegemonic urges might be in one countries interest on a first glance, but will lead to conflict (which usually is not in ones interest). Trying to stabilize by balancing the powers worked much better for peace, safety and security.
I consider that one of the easier lessons of history.8 )‘WWI’ … a good example of stupid 'joining or following larger agreements,
Well, i see WWI as a result of Germany not following the “balancing” path as it did before Wilhelm II. with Bismarck, instead (during Willys reign) trying to get more influence. As well, you (as US) didn’t join early or because of treaties, so you consider it would have been better if the US had stayed out of that war, and followed its own national interests only?
… Well, maybe… that could have spared the world suffer from Hitler and WWII, if the germans had “won” in WWI.- ‘why should France or Germany spend a single Euro?’ Diplomacy! ,
Wait…. we should follow an appeasement policy at you? You left the path of diplomacy. Until you return onto it, there is absolutely no reason for us to lick your boots. You want us to do what you didn’t? On what reasons?
- ‘See how the US tries to makes friends.’ This was after a few of our soldiers were blown away by ‘innocent civilians’ who got close and went BOOM!
(1) from the iraqi side, using suicide bombers is a good strategy: creating distrust between invaders and natives. And that worked perfectly in Vietnam, as history tells us.
(2) why do the UK soldiers behave so differently, even under the same threat?@F_k:
‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
Well, if you call them “liberal nuts”, it just adds to the credibility of the movie. Plus: I do know the difference between documentary and “pure entertainment”. If others don’t, don’t blame me.
(and restrict your use of foreign languages to things that fit ;) ). -
(2) why do the UK soldiers behave so differently, even under the same threat?
Different? How so? :-?
-
I quote:
“The British appear confident that they have reached some level of security in four southern towns. Today, British troops had changed their combat helmets for berets in Umm Qasr, As Zubayr, Rumeila and Safwan, British officials said.
Lockwood said the berets makes the soldiers appear more friendly and approachable, and build confidence on both sides.”from
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/4_1_03iraq_tipping.htmla rather “old” article, but the above behavior is part of what i meant.
-
from the iraqi side, using suicide bombers is a good strategy: creating distrust between invaders and natives. And that worked perfectly in Vietnam, as history tells us.
:D The US was not, in fact, invading south Vietnam. They were defending it from the North. Had they been in North Vietnam, the line between enemy and ally would have been alot clearer and the tactic would not have been as successful.
I think defining a suicide attack against a military target as terrorism is used because it is considered unconventional.
Riding up in a non military vehicle with a pregnant hostage and waving soldiers over close enough so you catch them in your explosion is unconventional.
I don’t see Americans or the British doing that. Or Australians for that matter.If one is going to say that military bombings of military related targets, that may and has caused collateral damage, is terrorism, than ever single army that has ever, throughout history, marched to war is nothing more then a gang of terrorists.
-
@F_alk:
I quote:
“The British appear confident that they have reached some level of security in four southern towns. Today, British troops had changed their combat helmets for berets in Umm Qasr, As Zubayr, Rumeila and Safwan, British officials said.
Lockwood said the berets makes the soldiers appear more friendly and approachable, and build confidence on both sides.”from
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/4_1_03iraq_tipping.htmla rather “old” article, but the above behavior is part of what i meant.
Okay, I fail to see what your point is. :-?
Are you suggesting that the US soldiers are mis-percieving the threat and/or should deal with it differently?
-
The Iraqi capital city is liberated. :) Iraqi citizens can be seen cheering in the streets. :D
-
Believe it or not Moses, that’s still not enough to justify it for F_alk. :(
-
De facto.
-
Mr. Ghoul,
True, the US did not invade in Vietnam… but for the strategy to create distrust, that was probably even better, with supposed allies turning against you.For the bombing of “military related targets”, i agree with you there as well. But Coventry (bombed by the Germans) was not a military target, and in the very end, the allied forces bombed german cities for no ther reasons that they had not been bombed before!
That is terrorism.
(As you might notice, i do not defend the Germans, but as there is more than black&white, these bombings were “evil” by both sides!)D:S,
Misperceiveing: probably, to a part
bahve differently: Yes, absolutely. To create trust, to appear as liberators, who bring freedom, justice and fairness, not to appear as oppressors or occupiers… the Brits behavior is much better suited.
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH? -
@TG:
The Iraqi capital city is liberated. :) Iraqi citizens can be seen cheering in the streets. :D
- stolen from a right wing, pro-war, conservative rag:
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some news agencies have refused to show the bloody images – especially civilians killed by U.S. “cluster bombs” – because they’re too graphic, according to Amnesty International.
“Videotape of the victims was judged by Reuters and Associated Press editors as being too awful to show on television,” an Amnesty release said this week.
“Independent newspaper journalists reported that the pictures showed babies cut in half and children with their limbs blown off. Two lorry-loads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, were seen outside the hospital.”
These are the grim realities of war. But we’re not seeing much of it.
Instead, we watch satellite-guided missiles hit distant targets. We see tanks roll into cities, mortar fire strike buildings and a few Iraqi soldiers flee compounds under heavy fire.
We see some images of prisoners of war and the occasional slain Iraqi soldier.
But let’s face it, from the perspective of our living room couches, this has been a relatively antiseptic war – free of blood, maimed bodies and dead children.
If we didn’t know any better, this war was almost entirely about “targeted” bombings of government buildings and jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets.
It’s not that there’s been a shortage of casualties. No, they number in the thousands. It’s just that we’re not seeing them.
And if you don’t see them, if you don’t hear the stories of the grieving families and the shattered lives, you get a lopsided perspective of the war.
I’m glad that Saddam’s reign is at an end - probably a lot more than the anti-war protestors. Of course it’s an important propaganda exercise for Americans to see the happy Iraqi’s, and not the blown up ones.
- stolen from a right wing, pro-war, conservative rag:
-
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?
Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT? :P :P :P
CC, some of those so-called “cluster bomb” attacks on civilians are simply claimed by the Iraqi’s to be our missile. What proof do you have? The Iraqi’s are shooting missiles up blindly because they can’t turn on their radars, and is anybody surprised when the missile just falls back down to Earth?
As for your main point, this war probably is censored a lot. I don’t neccessarily see the value is showing us bloody bodies. Don’t we already know that people are getting killed?
-
but for the strategy to create distrust, that was probably even better, with supposed allies turning against you.
I would agree with that.
I would also agree that “carpet bombing” a city is something you could define as terrorism. -
@Deviant:Scripter:
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?
Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT? :P :P :P
Putting up the US flag? Well, if you like it, then it must be something everybody likes, right?
CC, some of those so-called “cluster bomb” attacks on civilians are simply claimed by the Iraqi’s to be our missile. What proof do you have? The Iraqi’s are shooting missiles up blindly because they can’t turn on their radars, and is anybody surprised when the missile just falls back down to Earth?
Hmm, but you agreed with BB when he talked of people who want to see only what they believe, didn’t you?
Well, the proof is that neither the US or the UK have denied using cluster bombs, we know the effect of cluster bombs compared to rocket debris falling down.As for your main point, this war probably is censored a lot. I don’t neccessarily see the value is showing us bloody bodies. Don’t we already know that people are getting killed?
[blackest sarcasm]
Hey, it was only “people getting killed” in the Twin Towers, wasn’t it?
[/blackest sarcasm] -
Propaganda is a two way street.
Now, I do belive that Iraqi civilians are being killed, however, I question the number that Iraq claims. According to some, America hasn’t even enter Iraq yet.
And I’ve have seen civilian dead and wounded from other stations shown on CNN/CBC. Why is it, though, I only see women and children. Do American bombs not hit men?
How come the Arab nations don’t show Saddam’s regime hanging women for waving at coalition forces. Or the displaced Kurds living in tents, barefoot and under dressrd, in the cold mountains of Northern Iraq for fear of Saddam. Why don’t they show the dead Kurd women and children that were gased by Saddam in 88’ as a reminder to why, in part, that coalition forces are in Iraq.
I also wonder how much Arab nations mention the female POW that was saved. No doubt brutally raped and beated.We all know American military advisors are no angels here and there is Amercian bias on American TV, but what nation dosen’t have a spin on their news.
Lets keep it in perspective.
America is going out of its way, like no other nation at war, in history, to avoid civilian death. It doesn’t make it ok or completely justify it, but it should be acknowledged. -
Mr. Ghoul, I totally agree. It seems some expect Americans to wage a war that kills no civilians and yet seem to look the other way when the thugs use women and children as shields. Some might say that they are fighting to defend their homeland. Bull. Those thugs who use women and children as human shields are not fighting for Iraq and the average Iraqi.
Al Jazzera is barely showing those Iraqis that are cheering the Americans, rather they are still showing dead babies and women 24/7. I’ve heard many Arabs are angry at local media for lying to them, they find it hard to understand Iraqis welcoming Brits and Yanks as liberators while foreign governments and foreign people say otherwise. Who should you believe, average Iraqis or Al-Jazerra?
I also note that Iraqis have looted the German Embasy and a French cultural mission. It seems the Iraqis think the Franco-German Alliance was supporting Saddam and not Iraqis. Those dumb Iraqis just don’t get it…. or maybe those smart Iraqis do get it after all.
BB
-
BigBlocky, would you rather Al Jazzera did not exist? It sounds like it. Its not perfect, but its not state controlled either. Its the only free news source in the region.
Suggested Topics
