U.S. Soldiers used as propaganda.....the horrors of WAR... [Archive]

KooReeT

25-03-2003, 01:32

Let me start this off by sayin that personaly, I don't really agree with the politics of this war. But then again, don't we all have mixed emotions?
One of my reasons for being a lil anit-war was to avoid something like this to happen.....Now Iraq has POW's and they are using them and dead soldiers as propaganda. I understand the fact that they show the true horrors of war but not like this.......not like this...
I hope everyone agrees that war is ugly. And at the end, nobody really wins a war. But deep inside we all know war is almost always unavoidable. It is part of human nature since man spoke his first word.
But its also part of human nature to fight for what we believe in....
Whether it be if your fighting for land that was stolen from you, freedom, justice, or taking some dictator down with itchy trigger fingers, I respect you. Because people will fight for what they believe in even if the odds are against a tank and all you have is a shank in your hand and you still don't give a f**k!

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

-Sir Winston Churchill

So whats going to happen when Coalition Forces march into Baghdad? You got Saddam who's gonna feel like he's gonna be backed into a corner. A tight corner. He's probably goin to start feeling that lil thing called "desperation". And what does desperation lead to? Drastic Measures.
Whats to stop him from giving some little 12-year old an AK-47 and tell him, "Go defend your home". Of course god forbid this ever happens but I think its safe to say we're dealing with a maniac here.

Both sides will fight for what they believe in but the our Coaltion soldiers have more than that. Whether they are fighting for their country, their flag, their opinions, at the end, it won't matter if your a U.S. soldier, British, or Australian we will fight for each other...

If Saddam wants a war lets give him one!
Lets not let our soldiers die in vain or be used as propaganda!
Lets win this war and come home safe!
Remember your brothers and remember what they died for!

To our soldiers out there let me finish this off by a quote from Shakespeare-

"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war!;"

goku

25-03-2003, 02:29

I agree that this is sad for us..

But it was what was to be expected. War has always been terrible, and this didn't come as shock. Sadaam, well I don't want to get too far into this, but he is a brilliant military leader. Sure, he should have surrendered, but all he is trying to do is make the best of a bad situation and most off all make the USA look bad...

Tranz

25-03-2003, 04:14

Nicely said man, I agree wit basically everything you said. I just wish this war would come to an end as soon as possible, but until then, as an American I support our troops that are over there risking their lives for us, and our presidents decisions. Im really not for war at all, but sometimes war is inevitable. Iraq and its leader have been decietfull and have been warned, now after years of deciet, America is fed up and will now take Saddam out.

I just hope our troops stay safe as well as our allies. And hope that the world is a better, safer place after this war.

goku

25-03-2003, 04:57

Thanks for bringing this up.
I also support our troops. In fact, there are somethings I can't stand, and one of those things is an obnoxious American who protests the war in the wrong place and time (*cough cough Mike Moore)...

I don't mind protesters against the war, I'm glad their expressing freedom of speech, but sometimes you gotta hold yourself back. There were troops watching the Oscars, imagine how they felt when they heard disapproval of their actions.

Did anyone else hear that broadcast on NPR about the Gulf War veteran, who said he never felt more alone than when he was fighting? He said he just had this unbearable loneliness, he felt so bad and just wanted to go home and be with the wife and kids. It got even worse. Then one day he recieved a letter from an elementary school child which said how much he appreciated the soldier for fighting for their freedom, and how much he thanked him and that he hoped the soldier got back safely. After that, the soldier didn't feel alone for the rest of his time served.

So what I'm getting at is we need more of these people. We need support behind these troops.. The war has started already so at least support your country and the human lives at risk..

PowerPuff Grrl

25-03-2003, 14:15

OT

Originally posted by goku
In fact, there are somethings I can't stand, and one of those things is an obnoxious American who protests the war in the wrong place and time (*cough cough Mike Moore)...

But Michael Moore never critisized the troops out there. He said the elections, the president, and the war were all fictitious, but he never said the troops were. I don't think anybody would say that.

He is rather obnoxious, always has been. But I have a soft spot for people who exercise their freedom of speech at times when it wouldn't be appreciated. But yeah you're right, the Oscars isn't a time to preach but to thank those who have helped you win instead.
Oh well.

Charles

25-03-2003, 19:43

Originally posted by goku
...American who protests the war in the wrong place and time (*cough cough Mike Moore)...

So when is the right place, and time to protest? Now that the war has started are we to be quite? If the war was wrong before it started, isn't it still wrong now? Moore has made a career out of in-your-face confrontations with those in power. His statement at the Oscars is completely in character.

Originally posted by goku
There were troops watching the Oscars, imagine how they felt when they heard disapproval of their actions.

The attack was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers. You underestimate the soldiers if you think they can't make this distinction. I had a friend in the US marines. He told me that as a marine, he couldn't ask for a better president than Ronald Reagan, but as a citizen, Reagan scared the hell out of him. My father was in the German army in WWII. He expressed a similar feeling: his country was at war, so he fought (that, and he was drafted at age 14). Not because he supported the Nazi party, but because he supported his country.

Now that the war is started, we have no choice but to see it through. I support our troops, and sincerely hope they can finish this as safely, and quickly as possible. I do not support President Bush, nor his action leading up to it. No matter how it turns out, we won't be measurably safer, and the US' reputaion will have been diminished.

luxxi

25-03-2003, 19:54

Originally posted by goku
Thanks for bringing this up.
I also support our troops. In fact, there are somethings I can't stand, and one of those things is an obnoxious American who protests the war in the wrong place and time (*cough cough Mike Moore)...

No ofense but t.A.T.u. forum is one of those places too. While I think people should express their feelings about war (in support or in oposition) this is not the place and will likely provoke mud slinging contest and insults between those pro-war and those against it.

But topics like this are something moderators should decide on.

This thread will remain open as long as the discussions remain civil and no "mud slinging" takes place. Thank you for your thoughts and concerns. I'm sure we can all be level-headed, yes? ^_^'

luxxi

26-03-2003, 19:26

Originally posted by luxxi
This thread will remain open as long as the discussions remain civil and no "mud slinging" takes place. Thank you for your thoughts and concerns. I'm sure we can all be level-headed, yes? ^_^'

As I said, it's up to moderators to decide. I just hate it when people use various forums to express their views that have nothing to do with main subject of those forums (and this isn't the only forum that this is happening on).

KooReeT

27-03-2003, 01:11

Well no offense but other General posts don't really have to do with Tatu either. Just alot of everyday things. I just wanted to express my thoughts on current events and hear some opinions. Know what I'm sayin?

goku

27-03-2003, 01:50

Well, it seems that you guys liked that post? :D

You were right, in that I was wrong in the criticism of Moore against the troops instead of Moore and the president..

I just think it's wrong for people to not support our soldiers out there, especially since the war has begun. There is even news of a very large force clashing with the Coalition Forces, and the battle will be huge.

I want to thank the troops for fighting for our country and freedom, and I appreciate them for so willingly putting their lives on the line. I also send out my concerns to the POW's and the casualties so far..

Tranz

27-03-2003, 06:26

this is the general forum, and i think topics like this are ok. I mean lets ppl express feelings openly. I mean most of the ppl here are civilized and respect one another opinions.

crni

27-03-2003, 21:35

I want to thank the troops for fighting for our country and freedom
and would you please tell me who and how actually endangered your country and the freedom in general?

Charles

28-03-2003, 00:14

The US military is an all volunteer army. They have each chosen to defend their country, and to put their lives at risk to do so. That is worthy of praise in any soldier, in any army.

Where this breaks down is that to do the above, they have also sworn to follow orders. It is those orders that I have a problem with, as do many.

I'm still waiting on a satisfactory explaination on who and how. As for freedom, there has been a steady erosion of freedoms in the US since 9/11.

luxxi

28-03-2003, 00:52

Originally posted by Charles
The US military is an all volunteer army. They have each chosen to defend their country, and to put their lives at risk to do so. That is worthy of praise in any soldier, in any army.

Are you saying that draft armies are worthy of less praise because they are forced to serve?

crni

28-03-2003, 02:05

As for freedom, there has been a steady erosion of freedoms in the US since 9/11.
what erosion of freedom in the us are you talking about???
does it by any chance include iraq? i don't think so...

PowerPuff Grrl

28-03-2003, 02:26

Perhaps Charles meant the freedom of many Arab-Americans being racially profiled.
Or perhaps the Government's new policy to have unlimited access to emails, telephone conversations, etc...

goku

28-03-2003, 05:36

I was referring to freedom of fear, and freedom of prejudice..

But I don't care if the government taps our phones etc.. It's their job to keep our country safe...

Charles

28-03-2003, 20:41

Guess I should make some clarifications. Are draft armies less worth of praise? That depends on the behavior and actions of the soldier, not on their status as draftee. A volunteer soldier has already demonstrated something that is worthy of praise.

The US government now has increased power to perform wiretaps and surveillance than it had before. Some of the changes are aimed at updating wiretap laws to the age of the Internet. This is basically good, but the above can now be done mostly without a court order. This opens the door to fishing expeditions. Librarians now must turn over the list of book you check out upon request, and they cannot discuss that they have done so. The same applies to bookstores. This opens the door to the criminalization thought if what you read can be used as circumstantial evidence against you. The use of military tribunals when someone could be tried in a federal court is another example. The accused has far fewer protections and assurances of due process in a military court. Recent reports from the Justice Department indicate plans (or at least the desire) to allow summary revocation of US citizenship. Once you cease to be a US citizen, you loose most of your rights to due process. One program that was scrapped would have had mailmen, and meter readers act as spies to keep tabs on people, and report on suspicious behavior.

After 9/11, various US agencies (police, and FBI) started using racial profiling on Muslim, and Arab Americans. When this has been targeted at other minorities, courts have usually ruled it to be illegal.

When a prominent US politician declared it a diplomatic failure when we started attacking Iraq, he was all but accused of treason. When we become a society that tolerates and condones the suppression of free speech, then our freedoms are diminished. Take a look at the effects of McCarthyism in the 1950s. Just the accusation of being in any way, shape, or form associated with communists could destroy someone's life.

Yes, it is the government's duty to keep our country safe, but at what cost? One of the fundamental rights in the US is supposed to be privacy. How much erosion of privacy, free speech, and due process is safety worth?

Luxxi - you're right. This isn't really the place for this discussion. I appear to be the main provocateur here as well, and for that I apologize.

luxxi

28-03-2003, 21:06

Originally posted by Charles
Guess I should make some clarifications. Are draft armies less worth of praise? That depends on the behavior and actions of the soldier, not on their status as draftee. A volunteer soldier has already demonstrated something that is worthy of praise.

Wait till next June and then go to Normandy when they will celebrate 60th anniversary of Overlord and tell Allied veterans there that they aren't as praiseworthy because they were forced to hit the beaches. I'm saying wait till next year because you already missed 60th anniversary of Stalingrad battle.

Anybody who defends his countrs (or ideals) and is risking his/her life in doing so is worth of greatest praise. Volonteer or draftee.

As for volunteers who join because they can't find anything better and are in only for the money..... you decide.

Echoed

28-03-2003, 21:18

Charles didn't mean that because someone is a volunteer that they deserve MORE praise than a draftee. He was simply stating that the soldier who is a volunteer has shown that he is willing to die for whatever cause. A draftee has the same amount of honor when he goes to war. Unless the draftee because a deserter. Therein lies the difference. There is no shame in being a draftee, to the contrary, if one has gone to war to defend a good cause, then they are just as worthy as the next man.

As for money. There's always money involved. But that isn't really the subject. There was no comment of offence towards draftees. ^_^' There was simply a statement that volunteers show a certain amount of courage to join the ranks of the army, just as draftees show courage in the face of adversity to defend their country.

~Echo.

Silenced Sonix

30-03-2003, 16:27

War is man's way of separating the weak from the strong, it's our way of cleaning out the gene pool a bit. The armament companies make money, and everybody's happy as long as the money keeps on rolling in. Fuel the fires, boys, fuel the f***ing fire...

luxxi

30-03-2003, 16:39

Originally posted by Silenced Sonix
War is man's way of separating the weak from the strong, it's our way of cleaning out the gene pool a bit.

The problem is thatt he ones with best genes die first.:(

Silenced Sonix

30-03-2003, 22:22

If they had the best genes, they would be the generals, not the grunts.

Charles

30-03-2003, 22:32

And I thought I was cynical.

luxxi

31-03-2003, 11:50

Originally posted by Silenced Sonix
If they had the best genes, they would be the generals, not the grunts.

Not necessary. Generals are hardly the strongest, fastest and ones with fastest reflexes in the armed forces.

Fossil_12000

10-04-2003, 20:47

I agree on some points people tend to get what the real policy of this war is. 1 the U.S. is the only wourld superpower and we get the resposobility of policing the wourld. 2 we are part of NATO and must meet an defend the policies of the other member nations and thats what brings us the the point Iraq has CBN cemical nuculer Bioliogical weapons. But he does not have the missles to deliver them long distances but he will evetually even then he does not pose a threat to the U.S. but he will pose one to are allies Turkey Italy Russa Isrial and even France evetually so we are tring to stop a mess before it becomes a dasaster. and not just that there is still the treat of terrorism all over the wourld and many people would love to see the weapons used on the U.S. and even our allies

luxxi

10-04-2003, 23:55

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
I agree on some points people tend to get what the real policy of this war is. 1 the U.S. is the only wourld superpower and we get the resposobility of policing the wourld.

No. Might doesn't make right.

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

2 we are part of NATO and must meet an defend the policies of the other member nations and thats what brings us the the point

Even if NATO members Germany, France and Belgium disagree?

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

Iraq has CBN cemical nuculer Bioliogical weapons.

And your proof is? None were found and they weren't used.

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

But he does not have the missles to deliver them long distances but he will evetually even then he does not pose a threat to the U.S. but he will pose one to are allies Turkey Italy Russa Isrial and even France evetually so we are tring to stop a mess before it becomes a dasaster.

Funny thing how European countries don't think this way. But then again US knows best, doesn't it?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

and not just that there is still the treat of terrorism all over the wourld and many people would love to see the weapons used on the U.S. and even our allies

You do know that none of the 11.9. attackers came from Iraq? And that OBL called Hussein an idiot and that their policies are very different?

Fossil_12000

11-04-2003, 17:28

I have a theroy of why France dicited not to fight

France in i belive 1982 helped build reactors in Iraq and i also belive helped with there CBN programs. so to the point if you were France would you want to push a war that you may have helped start. Dont get me wrong i beleve in helping 3 wourld nations that are wanting to better them selves but i dont belive you should help dictatoish nations because for one if he gets mad at a nation, preson, religon anything he would have the resources of a nation a his disposal so basiclly complete power

so why did France help them i dont know i would love some input

what do you thinki would rather have a German divison in front of me than a French regment behind me

luxxi

11-04-2003, 18:50

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
I have a theroy of why France dicited not to fight

France in i belive 1982 helped build reactors in Iraq and i also belive helped with there CBN programs. so to the point if you were France would you want to push a war that you may have helped start. Dont get me wrong i beleve in helping 3 wourld nations that are wanting to better them selves but i dont belive you should help dictatoish nations because for one if he gets mad at a nation, preson, religon anything he would have the resources of a nation a his disposal so basiclly complete power

Oh, and US had clean hands in Iran-Iraq war, right? Like giving substantial aid to Iraqis after they gassed Kurds in 1988, giving Iraqis sattelite intel about Iranian positions, blaiming Iran for Iraqi attacks on tankers, tolerating Iraqi use of gas. but hey, those were just Iranian embassy-taking scum, so who cares, right?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

so why did France help them i dont know i would love some input

what do you think

Money? Influnce?

Fossil_12000

11-04-2003, 19:22

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. got evolved in Iran Iraq war. first let go back to ww2 the U.S. gave aid to Russa the U.S. were never really on speeking terms but we worked with them to destroy a bigger treat to the wourld the U.S. help Iraq at the time because of what the Iranean because of human rights violations and i think more like pay back for the hostige thing in 79 and iran is part of the axis of evil

KooReeT

11-04-2003, 19:27

Just to add to this Iraq/Iran thing, the U.S. govt. admited to helping Iraq with weapons "and" they were giving Iran intelligence on Iraq.......so what does this mean?......My opinion, sit back and watch two enemies kill each other...

Laurenz

11-04-2003, 19:54

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
I have a theroy of why France dicited not to fight

very simple reasons
- there is no UN mandate. it is open for discussion whether you really need one, the US decided to go in without one. Advantage: you're not limited by your mandate (like in 1991). Disadvantage: you set a precedent. Now other countries may decided to start a war and ignore the UN.

- it is not their war: they're not attacked. America may argue that they think Saddam has something to do with 9-11, but then, America is not clear what it is doing. If it would have claimed to be revenge 9-11 and tip over Saddam for reasons of aiding OBL, then fine, you won't hear me complain. But America all of a sudden presents itself as liberator of the Iraqi people, and that is sheer nonsense to me. I know people who have fled for the regime, and I'm talking decades ago when the military shot the Iraqian democracy to hell. So, America all of a sudden grew a conscience? I don't think so. So should a country be forced to aid in a war which so clearly has a double agenda? I think not.

Don't be a media zombie and believe everything they show you about France. It is a discussion in France as well on what to do about Iraq. There is a lot going on which we do not see in the media, or sometimes we see things in the media which politics simply deny (like the picture of the Polish special forces aiding the American troops, while the Polish government denies the very existance of such special forces...)

luxxi

11-04-2003, 20:10

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. got evolved in Iran Iraq war. first let go back to ww2 the U.S. gave aid to Russa the U.S. were never really on speeking terms but we worked with them to destroy a bigger treat to the wourld the U.S. help Iraq at the time because of what the Iranean because of human rights violations and i think more like pay back for the hostige thing in 79 and iran is part of the axis of evil

True but:
-Germany invaded SU so Us was helping nation that was attacked, while Iraq invaded Iran so US helped attacker
-SU didn't use chemical weapons, despite Germans being in suburbs of Moscow
-SU never attacked international shiping
-SU didn't attack US warship

luxxi

11-04-2003, 20:14

Originally posted by KooReeT
Just to add to this Iraq/Iran thing, the U.S. govt. admited to helping Iraq with weapons "and" they were giving Iran intelligence on Iraq.......so what does this mean?......My opinion, sit back and watch two enemies kill each other...

That isn't exactly true. After Iraqi ofensive was turned back in 1984 US started giving Iraqis satelite photos of Iranian positions (and at that point Iraq started using gas).

US (or more precisely CIA) sold Iran Stinger missiles to raise money to help Contras fighting leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua (that's why this affair is called Iran-Contra). US Congress forbade any aid to Contras so money had to come from different source. It was also believed that this would help release US hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, which was extensively backed by Iran.

Ghalib

11-04-2003, 21:45

It is always interesting reading peoples opinions who I presume are from the West on the East.

What is the latest specualtion on where the US are intending to go next ?

Well after all they are on a hat-trick ?!?!?

:dknow:

PowerPuff Grrl

11-04-2003, 22:13

Many speculations as to why the US is attacking Iraq.
Some say it is for oil, while other say it is to liberate the Iraqis.
I think this argument is worthy of some consideration:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

I'm pro-war, not because I think the US is right in this or anything but because they will be toppling a dictator in the end.
But knowing how the US gov't intervene in other countries, I just hope to God they were serious about restructuring Iraq.
We all know what happened the last time America tried to liberate a country:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/10/afghanistan/index_np.html

What is the latest specualtion on where the US are intending to go next ?

I hear Syria.

bgirlnikki

12-04-2003, 05:45

By my estimation, since the war started, the 24 hour cable networks, in conjunction with their military analysts, have droped more than 30 megatons of precision-guided manure on the american people.

Ghalib

12-04-2003, 15:51

LOL ....
"precision-guided manure" has been dropped everywhere..
please tread carefully..

Ackey

12-04-2003, 23:56

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! LMOA!

Good one nikki!

Charles

13-04-2003, 02:23

Originally posted by bgirlnikki
By my estimation, since the war started, the 24 hour cable networks, in conjunction with their military analysts, have droped more than 30 megatons of precision-guided manure on the american people.

Much as I'd like to laugh at this, its just way too true to be funny.

Sgt. Yang

13-04-2003, 18:30

I found it funny because it's true! Ha ha.

spyretto

14-04-2003, 14:35

that's the only good thing that can come out of this war. Hope the US military stays to clean the mess they caused ( they have to do it now that all eyes are on them ).

I think that the Iraqui government used despicable tactics but how about the use of weapons of mass destruction as propaganda? we still haven't seen anything.

Fossil_12000

14-04-2003, 16:32

The U.S. went in without popular support because the UN secrurity couincl failed to act. the U.S. did this not because of oil not for Iraqs freedom simply you build weapons of mass destrotion or anything you will pay the price. for you who say thay have no proof well! the Iraq goverment was given a deadline on a detailed report on exsisting weapons in the country and when we got the report it had gaps in it, it had weapons missing that we later found and it was almost to a tee the exact same report given at the end of gulf war 1

so the genral feeling is that if suddams goverment cant work with the U.S. or UN inspectors than if he must be removed by force than so be it even without international support. and on a smaller not if you do not live in the U.S., U.K. or even the 40 other nations involved or Iraq then really you dont have much to say because you taken your stand. so people belive that the U.S. is doing this because we are the single most powerful nation on the planet but if it was not for that power do any of you think Europe would be here or part of a Larger USSR that would most likly still be around.

Ghalib

14-04-2003, 18:17

:: Clears throat ::

China ...

luxxi

14-04-2003, 18:44

Fossil: If Iraqi WMD were such threat to region as US say then why didn't Husein used them when his regime was directly threatened? Could it be, gasp, because he didn't have them?

UN "failed to act" because under UN charter (which US helped to write) didn't allow for war under such reasons as US cited (WMD, regime change, leader who tried to get father of current US president).

And you overestimate support a lot. Directly involved are: US, UK, Australia and Poland with Chezh, Slovakia and Ukraine providing NBC detection teams. There are soem countries that suported US & friends in other ways (basing rights, overflight rights...) but of "Coalition of the willing" many countries many gave suport because it couldn't hurt them and didn't involve anything (e.g. Somalia, some Latin american countries....).

Fossil_12000

14-04-2003, 19:43

i dont belive that he has very many working WMD but he does have a few even you no that i trying to say in the nere future he could gain the tecnology to produce these kinds of weapons in what i always say is never trust the one who lie
unlike Iran and N Korea he has said his country has no wmd but when UN insectors went in they did find small amounts they also found rockets that the said they didnt have. im not trying to say that this war is nessisary but i do beleve something needed to be done and while fixing a problem why not try to fix the hole problem

P.S. im not try to up set anyone or trying to talk down antiwar people or anything im just letting everyone know how i and i think the largest % of americans feel so dont get upset if i say something wrong

Fossil_12000

14-04-2003, 19:46

im sorry for not giving enough credit to our allies i dont mean not to i have no problem with any nation in the world that does not have a problem with america but as everyone i think would and should we always favor the nation we are from more

luxxi

14-04-2003, 22:42

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
i dont belive that he has very many working WMD but he does have a few even you no that i trying to say in the nere future he could gain the tecnology to produce these kinds of weapons in what i always say is never trust the one who lie

And these alledged small amounts of WMD posed such great risk to whole world that US had to take action and invade? Get real.

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

unlike Iran and N Korea he has said his country has no wmd but when UN insectors went in they did find small amounts they also found rockets that the said they didnt have. im not trying to say that this war is nessisary but i do beleve something needed to be done and while fixing a problem why not try to fix the hole problem

Did they found them? I'm talking about Blix, not Powell's half baked acusations, half truths and complete lies at UNSC? And Iraqis claimed Al Samoud missiles were within limits imposed and destroyed them anyway. As for Scuds, were any fired during war? No? were any found? No? Can you draw any conclusions?

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

P.S. im not try to up set anyone or trying to talk down antiwar people or anything im just letting everyone know how i and i think the largest % of americans feel so dont get upset if i say something wrong

If US population think their governemnt is doing the right thing fine. Germans thought Hitler was doing the right thing too.

PowerPuff Grrl

14-04-2003, 23:27

Fossil_12000, don't make your country take most of the credit for World War II. As much as the US contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany, it was really the Russians who tore them apart on the the Eastern Front. Second to them were the British, and the British military consisted a lot of British colonies including Canada (which manufactured most of the tanks, truck, guns, etc), Australia, New Zealand, India, etc...
In fact most of the Hollywood movies portraying World War II stories are in fact Canadian stories, fyi.

But nevertheless, America did play a very, very important role... afterwards. Your country helped restructure Western Europe and they would not have recovered so rapidly if it wasn't for the Marshall Plan.
You also established the World Bank and the UN in which you diluted some of your power to help build healthy relationships between nations and with this you assumed the position to police the world.

Now I am not going to say that the Opposition (France, Germany, and Russia) is right in going against the US, UK, and Australia. Those countries have just as much vested interest in this war as the Coalition and are manipulating their power in the UN (and EU) to achieve their goals.
But that doesn't excuse the US of their abandonment of their obligation to the UN, Bush didn't even try to negotiate with the council, Blair had to drag him to it.
And this isn't the first time either, remember the Kyoto Protocol?

I am not regarding the UN as being good at all. They have, in so many instances, failed to commit to resolutions in the past before. Moreover, they have avoided the responsibility to act out and take action against oppresion and continue to do so.
But the US has contributed to the avoidance as well, they have absolutely no right to complain. As well, the US does not participate in Humanitarian causes in the World, usually the dirty work is done by almost all of Europe, Japan, Canada... in fact everybody but the US.

By giving up on the UN what the Coalition Forces has set is a precedent for other nations to go to war without approval.

PS: The US has never acted out against a country to the sole benefit of other parties based on good, selfless intentions.
No country has ever done that done that, the US isn't any different.

Charles

15-04-2003, 00:33

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
i dont belive that he has very many working WMD but he does have a few even you no that i trying to say in the nere future he could gain the tecnology to produce these kinds of weapons ...

You cannot use having the technology to make WMD to support anything. If you do, then every country in the world is guilty. Any graduate school chemistry student in the world could make chemical weapons. The information on making all sorts of nasty weapons is easiily found on the internet. There are books on how to make a methamphetamyn lab, but reading that book doesn't make someone a drug dealer.

It is only in the continued creation, stockpiling, and USE of WMD that can justify action. Sure, Iraq has done all three, but recently? I have yet to hear of a cache of WMD being found. Chemical suits. Yep, but not a weapon. Nerve gas antidotes? Again, not a weapon. Possible sarin gas? Nope, probably just pesticides.

goku

15-04-2003, 00:54

But the thing is the U.S. doesn't need that so they can actually eliminate them... Just a good reason to tidy up some loose ends. And I don't blame them. If I was the president I'd have been in so many wars by now..

In fact, I think the U. S. isn't very smart by trying to be so conservative.. But George W. is starting to get away from this.. And what do you guys think of this Syria issue?

Charles

15-04-2003, 01:21

We got away with attacking Iraq in part becuase Iraq had zero allies. No nation came to their aid. I doubt it would be the same if we were to attack Syria. It isn't too hard to imagine that triggering another energy crisis as we had in the 1970s.

PowerPuff Grrl

15-04-2003, 02:12

And even if Syria didn't have any allies Arabs would see it as a trend to invade the entire Middle East.
So obviously there would be some resistance from a lot of Arabs.

Ackey

15-04-2003, 02:51

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock

spyretto

15-04-2003, 14:55

(Saddam's) was depleted by the no-fly zones, selective bombing and the embargo. He wasn't more dangerous this time around than he was 15 years ago when both UK/USA was supplying him with wmd of the latest technology. Maybe they thought some of those weapons would still be in use today.
But if Bush turns towards Syria, that'd be plain stupid. I think he won't, as they did what they wanted to do in Iraq. No need for further aggrevation.

Fossil_12000

15-04-2003, 15:08

the U.S. is act for it own benifit and i wont argue with that but every nation has to look out for itself. but you must agree that unlike most nations in the bast it has help other nations with ther problems ever if in the long run it was selfish and most people no matter were they live are the same way Europe wont commit to war because 1 they will not spend the money to update thier military i understand EU theory of colective security but you cannot build a strong economy if you are not will to provide for its defince i know im getting off the subject but the reason europe wont become involved is they really cant yea their is a big gap its been brought up in NATO summits for the last decade even when the U.S. works to with Europe the U.S. end up bering most of the load and that can get shoot down to on how you look at it the U.S. carries most of the actual combat load U.K. provided 37,000 troops to the war in Iraq and thats good that 1/3 of its standing military but it only spends 37 billion dolllars on defince the U.S. spend 314 i beleve and that only 4 % gdp
so on other word the U.S. has the power because it spends the money

Fossil_12000

16-04-2003, 16:32

does this mean i won the argument or did everyone stop caring

luxxi

16-04-2003, 18:36

I stil think US reasons for war are BS and Blair is such lapdog he woun't do anything to displease Bush (no ofence to Brits here). While France and Russia had their motives for not going to war so did US for going.

Charles

16-04-2003, 20:45

I don't think there is a winner in the argument. I haven't stopped caring, but I don't have more to say.

Fossil_12000

17-04-2003, 19:48

Well im not trying to win im not asking you to like or go with what i say i just want you to know what most of the people i live around
i have not meant to hurt anyone or make anyone mad and if i have im sorry

PowerPuff Grrl

18-04-2003, 20:53

Fossil 12000, I don't think any of us posted anything offensive, so there's really no need to apologize.
Don't worry about it man, no mods had to intervene.

Anyhoo, we all have our views and obviously there are going to collide with other views, so if there were any tension in this thread, it was pretty much expected.

Furthermore, I don't think the point of this thread was to convince anybody of anything, it was just to share our opinions.

Having said that I really enjoyed reading all of your posts.
And I respect everyone's opinion. I hope we have more thread like this in the General Forum.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 06:38

The defense department announced today that they thought they killed Saddam, but it was his Half-Brother's Cousin's Sister-In-Law's best friend's boyfriend's Uncle that they killed!

Fossil_12000

22-04-2003, 16:40

well i dont think it matters if we kill saddam or not he lost all of his power and i dont see him getting it back

oh hey since we have been on the subject of war who do you all beleve will be the next target for the us ive got money on N Korea or sirya?

luxxi

22-04-2003, 18:17

Syria. N korea can nuke Los Angeles and/or San Francisco and US woun't risk that. Better to pick fight with somebody who can't hurt you back.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 22:01

Has anyone seen, or heard about this yet?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=996&e=1&u=/030422/168/3v7m3.html

crni

22-04-2003, 22:10

sick!

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 22:11

the horrors of WAR...

crni

22-04-2003, 22:13

by all means

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 22:21

LOL ...Don't be taken in with a typical contrived image to show the extreme side of the Shia faithful.

It needs contextualising.

In short what you see as sick is devotion to others.

The Shia religion is very complex.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 22:22

I see things like that and wonder what things will be like if the gov. is ran by it's people. I wonder if we should have let things go on as they were.

But then I see things like this... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030422/241/3v4ub.html&e=6&ncid=996
And change my mind.

I am not sure if what the U.S. is doing is right but something HAD to be done! I just don't know what.

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 22:25

LOL does that mean the US of A is going to go into IRAN to stop actresses from being whipped ???

crni

22-04-2003, 22:29

and that would just be too much!

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 22:29

Hmmm, don't know.

All I know is things are getting ugly!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030422/161/3vag3.html&e=16&ncid=996

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 22:35

Well before the US of A goes "on tour" in the East ... maybe the civilised West should get there own houses in order .. :rolleyes:

crni

22-04-2003, 22:38

and it's just the beginning...

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 22:50

The U.S. does need to look at itself ......... Best shown in these pics
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20030416/cx_bs_uc/bs20030416&e=4&ncid=
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20030421/cx_bs_uc/bs20030421&e=1&ncid=

Also, I think alot of outside countries don't realize that the American people didn't ask for this war! We had NO say in the decision! All we can do is protest, and look where that has gotten us! What can we do? Nothing!

luxxi

22-04-2003, 22:52

Do you folks know why shi'ias do this to themselves? It's to punish themselves because their ancestors let Imam Hossein down and he was killed at Karbala (680 AD). Why don't you feel as disgusted when folks in Phillipines are getting crucified on easter? Because they are Christians who take their faith a bit too far while this are just some crazy Muslims, and we all know what kind of peopel they are?

And for that woman being lashed. Often this is symbolic and done with hem of the dress. Why don't you complain about Singapur, they have similar punishment. But hey, Singapur is western country and not some backward islamic country, right?:rolleyes:

Don't feel so superior, specially Americans who have capital punishment.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 22:57

How can we feel certian way when we don't hear about it?
I'm not "digusted" about how shi'ias punish themselves, I am disgusted at the fact that this kind of stuff is almost NEVER on the news! Why aren't they showing it? They have all thoes reporters over there! Why arn't they showing us what's going on? Why don't we know?

crni

22-04-2003, 22:59

but where did 80% come out of?
it's the percentage of the americans supporting the war...
wierd? i don't get it...

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 23:01

Now technically as a Muslim if I ;) at you both I may get whipped ?!?!?

But I am willing to take that on as you have both made informed points.

:done:

If there is anything specific you need to know about Shiasim ask away.

luxxi

22-04-2003, 23:04

Originally posted by bgirlnikki
How can we feel certian way when we don't hear about it?
I'm not "digusted" about how shi'ias punish themselves, I am disgusted at the fact that this kind of stuff is almost NEVER on the news! Why aren't they showing it? They have all thoes reporters over there! Why arn't they showing us what's going on? Why don't we know?

Why wasn't this reported? because under Saddam (1979-2003) this ceremony was prohibited at Karbala because Saddam was afraid this might turn into anti-governemnt riot. It is happening in Iran and most likely in other countries with shi'ia comunities (Lebanon, Afghanistan, Saudia...).

Why aren't they showing it? Bacause it isn't exactly scene you want your children to see before they go to bed and not something peopel want to see right after dinner.

But it is their tradition and their rituals so we shouldn't judge them from our POV.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 23:06

Where does it say that 80% of Americans support the war? Show me, I never saw such a poll!

luxxi

And as for it not being the scene you want your children to see, on Sept. 11, we saw people JUMPING out of a bulding to their deaths! This wen't on for DAYS! I remeber that in all of my classes the tv's were tuned to news stations for Three days! Everyone saw, young and old!

luxxi

22-04-2003, 23:09

Originally posted by Ghalib
Now technically as a Muslim if I ;) at you both I may get whipped ?!?!?

But I am willing to take that on as you have both made informed points.

OK, I'll take that as a joke. If you look at pretty member of oposite sex you don't get whiped. At least not in Iran.

Originally posted by Ghalib

:done:

If there is anything specific you need to know about Shiasim ask away.

I know some stuff. Fascinating branch.

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 23:15

I am one.

Glad that you got my joke.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 23:18

All I am trying to say is that when it comes to the rest of the world, Americans are not very informed. I just wanted to know why.

PowerPuff Grrl

22-04-2003, 23:25

The American media is very filtered. Sure other media sources are, but America has the most filters coming from a lot of different interest groups.
It's complicated, but try to look into Noam Chomsky.
The guy knows his shit!

luxxi

22-04-2003, 23:31

Ghalib: nice to hear it. Do you shi'ias consider pilgrimige to Mashad as obligatory as to Mecca or not? Because I have some conflicting reports about this. Some say it's a must, some say it's good thing to do but not obligatory. Some say it's as important as Hajj, some say even more so and that it cleanses person of sins.

crni

22-04-2003, 23:35

i didn't see it. i was hearing it on the news for days...

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 23:37

I didn't hear about a poll! And I don't know anyone that took one! Has anyone else heard of this?

skrtfntcwu

22-04-2003, 23:38

what, about the 80% of americans supporting the war?

erm, i read that about 75% support bush's take on the war.

-skrt

crni

22-04-2003, 23:39

don't get offended now...i just mentioned what i heard.
that's all.

PowerPuff Grrl

22-04-2003, 23:41

There was a pole and it did say that 80%, or something around that number, anyhoo the majority of Americans did support the war.
But that is when the filtering comes in play, the people that did support the war supported it under conditions; that the US had the backing of the UN, that Saddam Hussien posed a lethal threat towards the US, that Saddam was not obeying the UN disarmanent, etc...

These conditions were not included in the reporting of the pole, which as you can see, made a big difference.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 23:41

No, I'm not offended. Polls..... huh.

Anyway, What was the last thing you saw/heard about the war? ..... non Americans?

crni

22-04-2003, 23:46

...a man from america to represent iraq? something like that. now taht's wrong! the intention of war (???) was to pull down the present government and president but i don't remember anything about putting the americans to lead the state.?!

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 23:47

See, This is what I am talking about! I have heard NOTHING!

crni

22-04-2003, 23:48

i'm going to sleep now...
and you need to get informed, bgirl ;)

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 23:48

Originally posted by luxxi
Ghalib: nice to hear it. Do you shi'ias consider pilgrimige to Mashad as obligatory as to Mecca or not? Because I have some conflicting reports about this. Some say it's a must, some say it's good thing to do but not obligatory. Some say it's as important as Hajj, some say even more so and that it cleanses person of sins.

The ultimate pilgrimage is Mecca, it is "wajib" (obligatory).
Any thing else is "hadith" (important).

You are only truly cleansed after Hajj.

Unfortunately there are many fractions even within the Shia community (Arab Shia + Indian Sub-continent Shia) so I can see where conflicting reports come from.

There are easy way to see things.

Allah
Prophet Muhummed (PBUH)
Qur'an
Imam Ali AS (Son in Law of the Prophet)
Bibi Pak Fatimah AS (Daughter of Prophet)
Imam Hassan AS
Imam Hussain AS

People like to make things complex.

PowerPuff Grrl

22-04-2003, 23:50

It is Pinochet all over again.
Just watch, Iraqis will be living in even worse conditions since the removal of Sadam.

bgirlnikki

22-04-2003, 23:51

But what can we do? I have no power, no say, over anything! All we can do is talk! And I am getting tired of doing just that.

PowerPuff Grrl

22-04-2003, 23:55

2004 elections. You have power there.

Protest, protest, protest!
It didn't stop the Vietnam War but at least it got people watching and becoming aware of the American Foriegn Policy, and thus more critisizing and demanding.
Changes can happen.

Ghalib

22-04-2003, 23:58

There is some American official (man) who has the almighty task of setting up an interim Government.

That will be fun.

Lets see who can get the majority Shia, then Sunni then Kurds around the table ?!?!?!?

Bearing in mind the first of talks has happened with no Shia's attending.

The main decsion is the new Iraq going to be Shiria governed (Islamic Law) or Secular ?????

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.

Sgt. Yang

22-04-2003, 23:59

::Sleeps through the B.S.::

Ackey

23-04-2003, 00:06

When will this war be over?

bgirlnikki

23-04-2003, 00:11

I am tired of talking about things I have little to no control over. I think it's better if I just read what you all have to say and leave it at that.

Charles

23-04-2003, 02:05

Who said the war was over? Clausewitz said (depending on your source) "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means", then isn't the reverse true as well? The cold war lasted what, 40 years? If this is about money, oil, and economics as I suspect, then it won't truly end until the oil runs out.

I'm not a student of Clausewitz, but from what I have read, it seems to match the hawkish bent of the current US administration (both in the Congress, and Whitehouse).

skrtfntcwu

23-04-2003, 02:41

charles,

i havn't read him either. but his line makes complete, common sense.

i too agree that it 'won't end until the oil runs out'.
unfortunatly, the oil is going to be there for the next century at least. so i really hope the US intrusion won't last for that long.

in another realistic (if not implemented) theory, i believe that other than the oil, the US is trying to maintain a strong-hold on the mid-east, for the sake of Israel. Israel would therefore be a little more 'secure', becuase the mid-east govt's (if the US has it thier way) won't condemn the atrocities that Israel continues to perform. other than the obvious 'peace' that might occur, trade would flourish as well as and pipe-lines.

oh, there's that oil thing again :P