| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2003 04:15:28 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by bod:
Jerry Springer???
Could somebody explain this one to me please?
And Motown while you're at it - I thought that was Detroit? |
And Jamesons is Irish Whiskey, distilled in Dublin. Glenlivet is Scottish.
More disturbingly, and to show that this is NOT a black and white issue:
From the Halliburton website (Dick Cheney CEO until last year):
MAKFining is the global hydroprocessing technology alliance between Mobil, Akzo Nobel Catalysts, Kellogg Brown & Root, and Fina Research S.A.....Kellogg Brown & Root is a business unit of Halliburton.
So Halliburton does major business with Fina, which has 'billions in oil deals with Iraq' which in turn was run by the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE US until last year. How ill-conceived is this list? Ignorance is no reason to protest...
This is not a black and white issue. It's muddy, and it stinks the more you look at it.
James.
Message edited by author 2003-03-28 04:20:10. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:27:14 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I am not sure what the current administration is thinking about presenting a "politically correct war" and raving about these smart bombs because although war always serves a political end, the true nature of war is war itself: the only way to win is to reduce Baghdad to rubbish because they aren't going to give up until the civilian population gets hit hard, as they did in Germany to break the German's will to fight in WWII. War is still war, smart bombs won't change the will of men to fight, utter destruction will. |
This is so true Paganini. We've already seen that the air attacks haven't had the effect they were intended to, and it's all going to come down to ground troops going house to house in Baghdad. All the military people I see interviewed on TV are shaking their heads and saying they knew it would be this way, and that Rumsfeld, Bush and co. followed some bad advice when they came up with their "shock and awe" idea.
Now we have to live with the consequences - death and destruction. We will see what the Iraqis will go through on our TV screens. People will want to turn it off and forget about it all, but we should all live with this and not block it out. War is terrible, and should not be started lightly.
On top of it all, the Bush administration doesn't seem to want the UN's help in governing Iraq after the war. They want to set up a temporary US military government. All the Shi'ites and probably the Kurds as well, will want to overthrow this. They're saying that already. This conflict is going to last a long time. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:31:19 AM · #28 |
| All this war business makes me sick. There are SO many people FOR the war and SO many AGAINST it. Is it so unbelievable that the leaders of a few countries dont agree with Bush? Of course! Is that any reason to become bullies and boycott entire countries? Hell no! If each and every country complied with the US no matter what they did without thinking of it, for fear that they might boycott them, what kind of world would this be? The US would surely be seen as huge bullies. Allied or not, each country has the right to evaluate the cause and think for itself. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 07:10:00 AM · #29 |
I thought that this Rant was about food? What happened to the French Fries topic? Now I am hungry...
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 07:14:43 AM · #30 |
I saw on TV3 news tonight that the american media have been censored in what they can report ,predominately the killing of Iraqi people.
So TV3 showed us what america dont see and i am shocked in what i saw there were american soilders who killed iraqis (not just soilders) and strolling past thier dead bodies without a glimmer of acknowledgement!
There is more but i dont think ill go into it, im just amazed that this type of murder is being committed and all for what....DEFINETLY not liberation.
I too have CNN and ABC news as well and see what Iraqis do as well but i expected USA to be more humane !!
Message edited by author 2003-03-28 07:16:45. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 09:30:21 AM · #31 |
Hoogie, what is TV3? I want to see it. I think that people have a way of turning things around. Like the enquirer magazine. Those people that were killed could have had guns and were shooting at the troops. You don't just go off one persons oppinion. Evaluate the situation first.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 09:40:23 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Yes I am...cereal. I mean serious. :-)
By the way, what do you think of my signature? |
...read my first post in this thread and you can see that I believe that the US was most definitely a good part of the problem in the first place. you can clean your own mess up, thanks. |
that's a good attitude to have. we clean up our own mess, and you just jeer us on a photo website. at least we believe in proactive solutions to problems.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 09:46:08 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by lisae:
This is so true Paganini. We've already seen that the air attacks haven't had the effect they were intended to, and it's all going to come down to ground troops going house to house in Baghdad. All the military people I see interviewed on TV are shaking their heads and saying they knew it would be this way, and that Rumsfeld, Bush and co. followed some bad advice when they came up with their "shock and awe" idea. |
jesus this is getting insane. you now claim to know more about warfare than a general in the army. what was the intended effect of the bombing? you think TV is a form of propanganda, especially the media, but now you use it to support some point you think you have. isn't this great. i'd like to see you suit up and go over there and try to run a war. why don't you enlighten us all with your strategic battleplan.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 09:54:00 AM · #34 |
you'll never convince these pro-war people, it's a bad idea. they have a way of twisting everything to validate all their rationalizations and justifications.
in the end, it's madness. :(
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:06:14 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
There would have been much more time for diplomacy and the possibility of finding the 'smoking gun' that would have given some true evidence that he still had the capability of doing something, which would have then given the UN firm ground to do something on a multilateral basis.
That's why people protest the war.
Clearer? |
why do you accept a doomed diplomatic process? both sides have to be part of the process of diplomacy. how can you actually say Iraq has been a willing participant in diplomacy lately?
also wouldn't you agree that both sides have to want peace for anything to actually come of protests? i mean i don't actually think you could bring a valid argument that says that saddam is a peacemaker. he has never wanted peace. if he wanted peace he would have tried harder to prove his innocence. but he isn't that kind of person
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:06:22 AM · #36 |
Not exactly -- Al Jazeera, granted, it's a propaganda for the Arabs, has shown really disturbing images of Iraqi civilians, including one photo of a boy whose head was blown off in bits on their online website. I was curious and went there and nearly puked. they tend to show civilians more. Then again it could be they have more unrestricted access in Baghdad versus teh western media, but there is a certain censorship amongst the TV broadcasters in the US that i have seen which differs GREATLY on what everyone else in the world sees.
Eventually we'll see it with the embedded reporters as they advance on Baghdad. Personally I think the decision to allow embedded reporter is a bad one -- Bush will lose a lot of support once they see what it'd really take to win the war, as there no doubt be a lot of civilian casualties. Someone should've read Sun Tzu the Art of War :-) The last thing you want to do is besiege a walled and defended city, it's true 4000 years ago as it is today.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Hoogie, what is TV3? I want to see it. I think that people have a way of turning things around. Like the enquirer magazine. Those people that were killed could have had guns and were shooting at the troops. You don't just go off one persons oppinion. Evaluate the situation first. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:11:14 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
you'll never convince these pro-war people, it's a bad idea. they have a way of twisting everything to validate all their rationalizations and justifications.
in the end, it's madness. :( |
wow nice argument
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:18:22 AM · #38 |
Achiral:
you have to admit that in order to win there would have to be massive destruction to Baghdad, don't you?
The administration calculated wrongly that people would support us in open arms. I am not saying if war is needed or not, but if it is, are we really prepared to see images of 3 year old child dying from bullet wounds? Heck, are we even prepared to see hundreds if not thousands of our troops dead? This is what happened to Vietnam where we went to war against a population that doesn't want us there. You really can't win a war without popular support, unless you intend to cause massive casualties.
I am also surprised that the officials were not expecting "guerrilla" tactics warfare -- it seems like the perfectly logical defense for the Iraqis as they are inferior in conventional warfare to us and similar to Vietnam, the only way they can defend is to hit and run.
We have better be prepared to sacrifice a lot of people over this. This might be needed for us to get rid of the WMD that WE put over there in the first place in the 80's, or at least we looked the other way when it was used against the Kurds or the Iranians. We did support Hussein for much of the 80's because of a counterbalance need against the Iranians.
You know how I would have fought this war? I would've just nuke Baghdad :-) But would it cause a whirlwind diplomatically? yes it will. In the end i don't see any othe rway other than a lot of destruction to win the war so maybe nuking them would be the fastest way to end the war (though you can imagine that 99.9% of the world would shut its doors to us if we did a nuclear first strike). The reason US pulled out of Vietnam is not really because of popular support at home, it's because if we want to win in Vietnam we'd have to commit genocide.
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
There would have been much more time for diplomacy and the possibility of finding the 'smoking gun' that would have given some true evidence that he still had the capability of doing something, which would have then given the UN firm ground to do something on a multilateral basis.
That's why people protest the war.
Clearer? |
why do you accept a doomed diplomatic process? both sides have to be part of the process of diplomacy. how can you actually say Iraq has been a willing participant in diplomacy lately?
also wouldn't you agree that both sides have to want peace for anything to actually come of protests? i mean i don't actually think you could bring a valid argument that says that saddam is a peacemaker. he has never wanted peace. if he wanted peace he would have tried harder to prove his innocence. but he isn't that kind of person |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:37:19 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Achiral:
you have to admit that in order to win there would have to be massive destruction to Baghdad, don't you?
The administration calculated wrongly that people would support us in open arms. I am not saying if war is needed or not, but if it is, are we really prepared to see images of 3 year old child dying from bullet wounds? Heck, are we even prepared to see hundreds if not thousands of our troops dead? This is what happened to Vietnam where we went to war against a population that doesn't want us there. You really can't win a war without popular support, unless you intend to cause massive casualties.
I am also surprised that the officials were not expecting "guerrilla" tactics warfare -- it seems like the perfectly logical defense for the Iraqis as they are inferior in conventional warfare to us and similar to Vietnam, the only way they can defend is to hit and run.
We have better be prepared to sacrifice a lot of people over this. This might be needed for us to get rid of the WMD that WE put over there in the first place in the 80's, or at least we looked the other way when it was used against the Kurds or the Iranians. We did support Hussein for much of the 80's because of a counterbalance need against the Iranians.
You know how I would have fought this war? I would've just nuke Baghdad :-) But would it cause a whirlwind diplomatically? yes it will. In the end i don't see any othe rway other than a lot of destruction to win the war so maybe nuking them would be the fastest way to end the war (though you can imagine that 99.9% of the world would shut its doors to us if we did a nuclear first strike). The reason US pulled out of Vietnam is not really because of popular support at home, it's because if we want to win in Vietnam we'd have to commit genocide. |
let's not be too quick to draw conclusions about what is going on. i agree that it could get really ugly in Baghdad. I think the US is trying to shore up its positions in the southern Iraq cities that have been problematic. I think that US generals have realized they need completely open supply lines to have a chance with taking Baghdad. also our military is far superior to Iraq's. and the citizens there aren't exactly pleased with Saddam being there either.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:44:33 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Not exactly -- Al Jazeera, granted, it's a propaganda for the Arabs, has shown really disturbing images of Iraqi civilians, including one photo of a boy whose head was blown off in bits on their online website. I was curious and went there and nearly puked. they tend to show civilians more. Then again it could be they have more unrestricted access in Baghdad versus teh western media, but there is a certain censorship amongst the TV broadcasters in the US that i have seen which differs GREATLY on what everyone else in the world sees.
Eventually we'll see it with the embedded reporters as they advance on Baghdad. Personally I think the decision to allow embedded reporter is a bad one -- Bush will lose a lot of support once they see what it'd really take to win the war, as there no doubt be a lot of civilian casualties. Someone should've read Sun Tzu the Art of War :-) The last thing you want to do is besiege a walled and defended city, it's true 4000 years ago as it is today.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Hoogie, what is TV3? I want to see it. I think that people have a way of turning things around. Like the enquirer magazine. Those people that were killed could have had guns and were shooting at the troops. You don't just go off one persons oppinion. Evaluate the situation first. |
|
Your telling me this but you do not give a website. I want a website name and link!!! Don's say something and not give proof.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:45:29 AM · #41 |
i dont need to. others have already put forth very detailed rational dialog, only to have it slide off the teflon of some kind of blind self-justification. i think it must be akin to arguing with jeffery dahmer. even tho you tell him it's a bad idea, he still wants to eat your eyeballs.
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
you'll never convince these pro-war people, it's a bad idea. they have a way of twisting everything to validate all their rationalizations and justifications.
in the end, it's madness. :( |
wow nice argument |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 10:48:27 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i dont need to. others have already put forth very detailed rational dialog, only to have it slide off the teflon of some kind of blind self-justification. i think it must be akin to arguing with jeffery dahmer. even tho you tell him it's a bad idea, he still wants to eat your eyeballs.
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
you'll never convince these pro-war people, it's a bad idea. they have a way of twisting everything to validate all their rationalizations and justifications.
in the end, it's madness. :( |
wow nice argument |
|
explain this concept of blind self-justification. i can't believe anyone would actually say that. if anything the anti-war camp has accepted that kind of rationale because their is no proof for the things they say.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 11:15:50 AM · #43 |
www.aljazeera.net i think.... try that, it's the Arabic version. You have to click on a bunch of links to see photos, that's how i found it, i am not sure what the exact link is, but trust me you will see disturbing photographs. What do you think that this war will not have ANY civilian casualties??? if so, you must be naive.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by paganini:
Not exactly -- Al Jazeera, granted, it's a propaganda for the Arabs, has shown really disturbing images of Iraqi civilians, including one photo of a boy whose head was blown off in bits on their online website. I was curious and went there and nearly puked. they tend to show civilians more. Then again it could be they have more unrestricted access in Baghdad versus teh western media, but there is a certain censorship amongst the TV broadcasters in the US that i have seen which differs GREATLY on what everyone else in the world sees.
Eventually we'll see it with the embedded reporters as they advance on Baghdad. Personally I think the decision to allow embedded reporter is a bad one -- Bush will lose a lot of support once they see what it'd really take to win the war, as there no doubt be a lot of civilian casualties. Someone should've read Sun Tzu the Art of War :-) The last thing you want to do is besiege a walled and defended city, it's true 4000 years ago as it is today.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Hoogie, what is TV3? I want to see it. I think that people have a way of turning things around. Like the enquirer magazine. Those people that were killed could have had guns and were shooting at the troops. You don't just go off one persons oppinion. Evaluate the situation first. |
|
Your telling me this but you do not give a website. I want a website name and link!!! Don's say something and not give proof. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 11:18:00 AM · #44 |
Having a superior conventional army doesn't mean that victory is certain. See Vietnam war -- we definitley have a huge advantage over the N. Vietnamese and STILL lost because we didn't have popular support. I agree that they're trying to get popular support over in Iraq, but let's not forget this is the country that has fought the European colonists, the Mongols, etc. that has been trying to take them over for centuries. I think we're seen more as invaders than liberators. They don't like Hussein but I am not sure if they like us either and that's the real problem.
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by paganini:
Achiral:
you have to admit that in order to win there would have to be massive destruction to Baghdad, don't you?
The administration calculated wrongly that people would support us in open arms. I am not saying if war is needed or not, but if it is, are we really prepared to see images of 3 year old child dying from bullet wounds? Heck, are we even prepared to see hundreds if not thousands of our troops dead? This is what happened to Vietnam where we went to war against a population that doesn't want us there. You really can't win a war without popular support, unless you intend to cause massive casualties.
I am also surprised that the officials were not expecting "guerrilla" tactics warfare -- it seems like the perfectly logical defense for the Iraqis as they are inferior in conventional warfare to us and similar to Vietnam, the only way they can defend is to hit and run.
We have better be prepared to sacrifice a lot of people over this. This might be needed for us to get rid of the WMD that WE put over there in the first place in the 80's, or at least we looked the other way when it was used against the Kurds or the Iranians. We did support Hussein for much of the 80's because of a counterbalance need against the Iranians.
You know how I would have fought this war? I would've just nuke Baghdad :-) But would it cause a whirlwind diplomatically? yes it will. In the end i don't see any othe rway other than a lot of destruction to win the war so maybe nuking them would be the fastest way to end the war (though you can imagine that 99.9% of the world would shut its doors to us if we did a nuclear first strike). The reason US pulled out of Vietnam is not really because of popular support at home, it's because if we want to win in Vietnam we'd have to commit genocide. |
let's not be too quick to draw conclusions about what is going on. i agree that it could get really ugly in Baghdad. I think the US is trying to shore up its positions in the southern Iraq cities that have been problematic. I think that US generals have realized they need completely open supply lines to have a chance with taking Baghdad. also our military is far superior to Iraq's. and the citizens there aren't exactly pleased with Saddam being there either. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 11:39:37 AM · #45 |
| Sonifo, here is the link (to Abu Dhabi's website but it's the same images i saw the other day): //alarabnews.com/alshaab/alharb/shohadaa.htm |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 11:48:19 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by bod:
Jerry Springer???
Could somebody explain this one to me please?
And Motown while you're at it - I thought that was Detroit? |
And Jamesons is Irish Whiskey, distilled in Dublin. Glenlivet is Scottish.
More disturbingly, and to show that this is NOT a black and white issue:
From the Halliburton website (Dick Cheney CEO until last year):
MAKFining is the global hydroprocessing technology alliance between Mobil, Akzo Nobel Catalysts, Kellogg Brown & Root, and Fina Research S.A.....Kellogg Brown & Root is a business unit of Halliburton.
So Halliburton does major business with Fina, which has 'billions in oil deals with Iraq' which in turn was run by the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE US until last year. How ill-conceived is this list? Ignorance is no reason to protest...
This is not a black and white issue. It's muddy, and it stinks the more you look at it.
James. |
cheney hasn't been president since the election, and he sold all of his shares in haliburton before the election. it looks like the mud might have hit your eyeball as your were figuring out your facts
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 12:00:31 PM · #47 |
| And I assume that you think Cheney will go into colour commentating for NBC football when he's no longer vice-president? Ummm...no. He'll go back to doing what he does best, running oil companies. Running oil companies in a far better position than before this started. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 12:09:20 PM · #48 |
This is very disturbing. I still don't see how you got that it was us that did that. There is no proof. I know what Saddam is like. And with that I think he would kill his own people just to tell people it is us that did it. I want proof. And pictures of the dead is no proof.
I do see pictures of EMT's helping the burned and others that need the care. I don't see why they would help some and not others. hmmm...doesn't make sense.
I would have one suggestion. Don't tell a story unless you know it is true and you have the proof to back it up.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 12:29:09 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by achiral:
jesus this is getting insane. you now claim to know more about warfare than a general in the army. what was the intended effect of the bombing? you think TV is a form of propanganda, especially the media, but now you use it to support some point you think you have. isn't this great. i'd like to see you suit up and go over there and try to run a war. why don't you enlighten us all with your strategic battleplan. |
*Sigh*. If you want to see first hand the kinds of interviews I'm talking about, read this transcript from tonight's 7:30 Report on TV here in Australia (on a government funded TV station... and remember that our government is allied with yours, so it's hardly propaganda). Also read this transcript from the most recent PBS Newshour (which is screened on our other government funded TV station here every day). And then, if you have a good 30 minutes or so, listen to this very, very interesting radio interview from NPR, with a man who has inside knowledge from generals who have expressed concerns to him. He is a reporter who was in the front lines in Vietnam and the Gulf, and has strong connections. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 01:00:59 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
And I assume that you think Cheney will go into colour commentating for NBC football when he's no longer vice-president? Ummm...no. He'll go back to doing what he does best, running oil companies. Running oil companies in a far better position than before this started. |
yep you really don't have much else to say do you? any other lies you want to spread, feel free to do some research first
|
|
