Freedom Fries - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/28/2003 01:41:42 PM · #56

Wait, are you saying that the bombs we drop don't kill innocent people? You are pretty naive if you think that. To avoid civilian casualties using smart bombs doesn't mean we won't cause civilian casualties. The attack was clearly on a building (the link i show you -- and the photo was there as early was Saturday)

We'll be seeing more imnages of that shortly. I'll bet when our forces approach Baghdad, they'll see Republican guards entrenched with the civilian population and firing back at our troops. Our troops will then open fire killing both the civilians + the troops (similar to Vietnam, no choice there if you want to live). The question is, is our country PREPARED for this type of images and can we stomach them without capitulating like we did in Vietnam. The question to ask is: Are we willing to commit genocide to win? If we don't have popular support in Iraq, we will have to hit the civilian population hard in order to make them SUBMIT to us. That's how wars are won or lost. That's how Germany AND Japan surrendered, only after we bomb their cities and kill a lot of civilians.

You have to break their will to fight in order to win. We couldn't win in Vietnam because the only way to win is to kill off all the Vietnamese. Granted, Iraq isn't like Vietnam as that hter eare several ethnic groups in Iraq and with Vietnam is a lot more cohesive, but you still have Saddam's people, the Sunni, in the center of the country who may turn out to be more nationalistic.... like i said, they might not like Saddam but i doubt they like us either.

YOu have to put things into perspective. For centuries the Muslims and Christians have fought each other and the Arab world sees this as another "inquisition". IN Vietnam, they fought against the Chinese, then the French colonialists, then the Americans, they're used to that and they'd rather die than to live under someone else's control. It's hard to liberate a country when you have to fire on the civilians to win :)

I am hoping we have the stomach to hit the civilian population. If not, this war can turn into Vietnam and we'd be in deep trouble if this happens. It'd be an open door for terrorists (i.e. "Look at them, they can't even stomach a fight") With the embedded reporters there, Bush has made a serious error because it WILL be shown on TV about civilian casualties. He probably shoudln't have allow the press to be part of the war.

Originally posted by Sonifo:

Originally posted by paganini:
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

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.

rj324

Nikon D7000

03/28/2003 01:44:25 PM · #57

Dedicated to the Soldiers of Operation Iraqi Freedom

03/28/2003 01:49:23 PM · #58

Don't accuse me, by the way, of presenting something that is true or not :) Because these are reporter photographs. If you're going to trust American reporters, you should also trust other reporters, as each side tends to only report those that are of "interest" to their people. The press is really biased toward one or the other. On CNN they rarely show footages of these, even though they have them.

How do you know what Saddam is like? YOu hear it from the news reports. That's how. Can you show me absolute proof that Saddam did this or that? All you see is images of people being killed by chemical weapons but you don't see Saddam do the trigger, do you? But you know he did it. Simliarly, these photos are spread out across Baghdad to be too much to just be made up by a regime. There ARE and will be MORE civilian casualties, always will be in war. Even Gen. Franks said that. It's unavoidable. They are doing everything they can to avoid it but it's still unavoidable, it's the nature of warfare. There are a few civilian photos in HOSPITALS shot by American journalist on Time magazine that you can see, where do they come from? Duh.

I suppose you're going to argue next that American troops never kill innocent civilians in Vietnam either :)

Originally posted by Sonifo:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/28/2003 01:55:44 PM · #59

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

But go ahead with your stance. Nothing's going to change your opinion.

That pretty much applies to anyone with any stance, especially reading this forum. I would think, and definitely hope, that people do not come to the forums of a photography website in order to form their opinions. So why threads like this keep popping up EVERYWHERE is beyond me. Do you people, of any stance, expect to â��convertâ�� anyone of the opposite stance?

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.

Exactly the same with anti-war people. Anyone can pull a link to an article from anywhere on the internet and use it to their advantage. Credibility of the source? Who cares? Itâ��s text on the internet so it must be true. Link, link, link. Grab sections out of context. If anyoneâ��s true goal, whether pro or anti-war, was to educate and inform on their own stance, I would hope that they could do it in a better, more intelligent way than Iâ��ve been seeing. That being said, Iâ��m going to assume that anything less is not an attempt to â��convince these pro-war people,â�� but to pick fights and act like trollsâ�¦behavior which, if it were any other subject, would be completely unacceptable.

Originally posted by Geocide:

This is a sad time to be an American, so much arrogance and so little humanity.

Personally, Iâ��m not sad to be an American at all. I think the arrogance lies in the individuals who feel that they themselves have THE ANSWER.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

03/28/2003 01:58:47 PM · #60

Originally posted by paganini:

I am hoping we have the stomach to hit the civilian population. If not, this war can turn into Vietnam and we'd be in deep trouble if this happens.

If the civilian population will be deliberately hit, doesn't matter if they are forced into the frontline by Saddam's forces, and the news gets around, the coalition will be in big trouble.
Not only will most Iraqies get behind Saddam, all other Islamitic countries will have to get involved or face a revolution by their inhabitants. It is not for nothing that the Saud family, king Abdallah from Jordan etc keep such a low profile.
It doesn't even have to be direct involvement in the war. They could form an economical (oil) block, withdraw from our stockmarkets, share weapon technology, fund terrorists, etc.
The doom scenario would be a public uprising/revolution in Pakistan where they can get access to nukes. They could use them or perhaps share the technology with Iran, Syria and alike. Don't say this is daft, where did you think the Taliban went to, not Tibet, I can assure you that.

Winning the war does not mean peace in the East. Winning the war dirty or pseudo-dirty (enough goes wrong for the enemies propaganda to be effective and cause problems in neighbouring countries) will bring war into the whole region.

03/28/2003 02:16:51 PM · #61

Either way if we want to win, we'd have to hit them hard that usuaully means lot sof civilian casualties if the Republican guards move back into Baghdad and do street fighting amongst civilians. (i.e. a tank fires a shell at a building to take out a group of soldiers but ends up killing other people living in the building too)

The Taliban doesn't go to Tibet because if they did they'll all be slaughtered by the Chinese who hates islamic militants as well as they have issue with them in certain areas.

There are two choices:
1. Win the war -- may cause others to hate us. But they hate us anyway.
2. Don't win the war -- makes us look weak, will cause others to rise up to attack us.

There isn't a third. This war has to be won even if 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed in the process in order to save our lives. To say we're liberating Iraqi's is a politically correct term, but in the end it's all about us, the Americans :)

Arab trade with the US is not that important. THey will sell us oil, otherwise, they'll go broke. They might not buy anything from us, that's fine, because most of our export markets are in Europe and Asia (China/Japan/Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea). If the ENTIRE world is against us, then maybe we'd be in trouble. But most won't. Despite all the anti-war sesntiments from China, they have not publically said they'd veto the UN resolution for one reason only: they value our trade and wouldn't risk it over this war. The French, on the other hand is quite dumb :)

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by paganini:
I am hoping we have the stomach to hit the civilian population. If not, this war can turn into Vietnam and we'd be in deep trouble if this happens.

If the civilian population will be deliberately hit, doesn't matter if they are forced into the frontline by Saddam's forces, and the news gets around, the coalition will be in big trouble.
Not only will most Iraqies get behind Saddam, all other Islamitic countries will have to get involved or face a revolution by their inhabitants. It is not for nothing that the Saud family, king Abdallah from Jordan etc keep such a low profile.
It doesn't even have to be direct involvement in the war. They could form an economical (oil) block, withdraw from our stockmarkets, share weapon technology, fund terrorists, etc.
The doom scenario would be a public uprising/revolution in Pakistan where they can get access to nukes. They could use them or perhaps share the technology with Iran, Syria and alike. Don't say this is daft, where did you think the Taliban went to, not Tibet, I can assure you that.

Winning the war does not mean peace in the East. Winning the war dirty or pseudo-dirty (enough goes wrong for the enemies propaganda to be effective and cause problems in neighbouring countries) will bring war into the whole region.

KimInNB

Canon PowerShot A80

03/28/2003 02:20:57 PM · #62

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 DKNY???? Donna Karen New York!!!

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/28/2003 03:16:47 PM · #63

It's WAR here, folks. It's not Survivor or some other reality TV show, even if it's on TV all day.

You all who are arguing that this is the right or logical thing to do (pre-emptively invade Iraq) seem to take the following far more lightly than I do:

- impact of a unilaterally started war on human life, of both sides - our own hapless soldiers, and theirs; not to mention collateral damage, destroyed infrastructure, and irreparable psychological trauma on a generation. definitely there is a spectrum of values; some people have kill em all let god sort em out bumper stickers on their cars, others won't step on a bug. so i'm letting you know where i stand there: i dont want anyone to die needlessly. this is important to me.

- impact in dollars, to our already heavily indebted government, and our strapped economy. especially on the heels of the 2000 tech boom crash, the sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of afghanistan, tax cut one, and now tax cut two, record unemployment, low consumer confidence. could we not spend this money to help our people here at home? ("It's the economy stupid!"). With teachers getting laid off all over the country, our strength is being eroded at its base, the educational quality that initially catapulted us so far ahead of the world. yet we are going to spend all our money on war?

- impact in global goodwill. WE CANNOT GO IT ALONE on this earth. And not have to live in fear of attack from those that hate us. People don't just hate for no reason. So many people all over the world LOVE america. I know, I've traveled alot. But so many people all over the world also feel betrayed by the current leadership of america, that seems so willing to enter into this action that the vast majority of governments and citizenry, worldwide, think is totally irrational and immoral? Why would they all think that, if it wasn't true? Is everyone but us under a big spell of confusion?? Are we the only 'enlightened people' on the planet???? Everyone has heard of the person who doesn't get along with anyone and says 'everybody else has a problem, grr'. But it's that person who doesn't see their own behavior. Could we possibly be in that position? Are we not ignoring that "all signs point to yes"? (thanks, magic 8 ball ;)).. Yet our administration does not seem to care and is doing things that seem to be making it worse and worse.

So no, I do not take those 3 things very lightly at all, and yet it seems that is exactly what is happening. that those that support this action so lightly would cause the 3 things above to occur. and all for what? to attack a 3rd rate dictator in a 3rd rate country with no concrete connection to the people who actually attacked us, and no smoking gun, when meanwhile other countries and people that are far more dangerous run loose, and far more issues are pressing in our immediate, daily lives? Is it just a sensitivity issue? Does this not seem like such a huge waste? Do those things not seem like a big deal ??? Please explain this to me. Thanks.

Message edited by author 2003-03-28 16:05:00.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/28/2003 03:54:23 PM · #64

There is a double standard. N. KOrea, for example, you don't see we try to invade them. Even the S. Korea are hating us for being in their country now, it's getting worse. N. Korea has the capability to hit the US west coast with perhaps a nuke, so that's why we're not gonna piss them off. Saddam doesn't have that capability and is therefore an easier target :)

(not to mention there are 10,000 artelliry pieces aimed at Seoul and missles aimed at Japan from N. Korea, it'd be really bad for the world economy if there is a war on the Korean penisula. Iraq however hasn't made much impact on the global economics -- it's under sanctions for 12 years)

The biggest issue is whether the US will emerge from this as a liberator or a conquisitor... from the point of view of Afghanistan -- Taliban is gone, but why are we there? Becuaes if we're not, civil war will break out right now.

There's still much resentment toward the West due to the colonialism periods, namely British and French forces, in much of the world (especially in the middle east). I don't think people realize that and wonders why Iraqi wouldn't open their arms -- they have gone through colonialism, and they'd rather have a dictator who rose from amongst themselves, than being occupied by outside forces. That's the fundamental problem. It's all embedded with history, people dont' forget what the other person's ancestors have done to their ancestors easily.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

It's WAR here, folks. It's not Survivor or some other reality TV show, even if it's on TV all day.

So no, I do not take those 3 things very lightly at all, and yet it seems that is exactly what is happening. that those that support this action so lightly would cause the 3 things above to occur. and all for what? to attack a 3rd rate dictator in a 3rd rate country with no concrete connection to the people who actually attacked us, and no smoking gun, when meanwhile other countries and people that are far more dangerous run loose, and far more issues are pressing in our immediate, daily lives? Is it just a sensitivity issue? Do those things not seem like a big deal ??? Please explain this to me. Thanks.

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/28/2003 03:55:01 PM · #65

Originally posted by paganini:

I suppose you're going to argue next that American troops never kill innocent civilians in Vietnam either :)

I know for a fact that there was innocent people killed. I have family that was in that war. They themselves did not kill, but knew and seen those cruel heartless people that did. Just out of spite. Sad but true. I am hoping and praying that the troops over in Iraq find it difficult to be cruel and they have the patients to be kind.

I am not for war either, but I am not against it. I don't watch the tv or listen to the radio. I know a lot of it is lies anyway plus it is just boring hearing the same thing over and over again. I am worried and praying for the Iraqi's and the troops over there fighting.

We shouldn't show Iraq that we are against what our country is doing or they will get more fighting power and in turn will kill more civilians.

"We don't always agree with what our parents say, but in the end they are usual right"

Hoogie

Nikon D50

03/28/2003 04:06:45 PM · #66

SONIFO you keep chanting you want to see proof of what i saw ...TV3 is a New Zealand tv station and what i saw was our own reporters in Kuwait/Iraq.

It was on the 6pm news so i can hardly post it to you can i.

And yes TRUST me the usa are shielded from the killings of Iraqi people, if you open your eyes a little wider sonifo you might be able to see more that may shock you.

I still cant believe whats going on and no matter how much you carry on sonifo the fact is i know what i saw and what i saw is something you wont.

03/28/2003 04:07:20 PM · #67

BTW, magnetic999, dont' worry about the economy. After you have the 10D, if you lost your job, hey, just hire a starving college girl and shoot her naked and then sell the photos. I think a low-end porn magazine will pay $2000 for a photospread (about 15 photos) to freelance photographers :) I am definitely looking forward to my 10D next week! Probably going to get a 70-200mm F4 L lens too for good portraits + action shots, can't afford the F2.8 IS one guess i will have to use higher ISOs.

BTW, you should love it when you see a reporter in Iraq with a WHITE lens (i.e. a Canon L lens) :) I saw a bunch of them on top of a truck shooting non-lethally at the civilians grabbing humanitarian aid @ Salfwan on TV.

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/28/2003 04:08:05 PM · #68

Originally posted by kidyin:

I would think, and definitely hope, that people do not come to the forums of a photography website in order to form their opinions.

i would hope that people are always forming their opinion. when one's mind is finally made up one run the risk of losing enough flexibility to see new perspectives.

that said, the fact that this a photography website does not preclude other communication, any more than being a member of a car club would mean you could only talk about wrenches :).

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/28/2003 04:11:51 PM · #69

it's not me i'm worried about .. I worry more about this great, great country being driven into the ground by people that don't know what they h@ll they're doing ..

or are we going to prove the historical maxim that Golden Ages never last more than 100 years .. ? :P

Originally posted by paganini:

BTW, magnetic999, dont' worry about the economy. After you have the 10D, if you lost your job

Message edited by author 2003-03-28 16:13:56.

welcher

Canon EOS-5D

03/28/2003 04:19:19 PM · #70

I made a mistake earlier (and am making another one now by diving back into this.)

My earlier mistake was taking Sonifo's "apology" as genuine. Since then, she's invoked the same offensive parent/child analogy, told us that we're ALL wrong and deep down we know it, that we'd have to be dummies to actually believe what we say, and told us that we're "standing on platforms of poop spreading the stink around"(?). Widespread fear of confronting or tolerating differing opinions is one big reason I'm so scared of the direction this country is taking.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2003 05:15:53 PM · #71

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

i would hope that people are always forming their opinion. when one's mind is finally made up one run the risk of losing enough flexibility to see new perspectives...

My dad's description of "conservatives": My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts
and the counter-point: Changed your mind -- good, it proves you have one

Ricky Cleave

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/28/2003 05:16:34 PM · #72

Holy crap you can't be serious!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2003 05:16:58 PM · #73

Originally posted by Sonifo:

By the way, what do you think of my signature?

Do you know where it comes from?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2003 05:28:34 PM · #74

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Why aren't these protestors protesting Saddam's record of human rights abuse instead of the USA's attempt to end that abuse? Can you answer that?

They are too busy trying to keep Mr. Bush from cutting Headstart programs, kicking single moms off welfare so they can put their kids in day care and work a minimum wage job which yields LESS disposable income, kids going to public schools with no working restrooms or drinking fountains, and all those other annoying little details that go into running a democracy. Oh yeah, and cost money. Just remember each one of those pretty explosions costs $200,000 to $1.5 million -- I see a lot of school lunches going up in smoke...
We have many problems here the President is trying to distract you from...worried at all lately that YOU will probably be paying a $1000 in taxes to cover the fallout of the Enron fiasco?

Message edited by author 2003-03-28 17:29:18.