Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: .::Tin Can::. on June 28, 2004, 09:47:09 pm
-
Before I state my opinion and get shot out of the sky, the kind of political stance I take at least, I want to hear the thoughts of the people who saw Michael Moore's movie "Farenheight 9/11". Just tell me what you thought of it, and also him. After enough feedback I guess I'll throw my opinion on the table...
-
I'de love to see it right away, but I just don't want to give Moore any money. Which means the SN route, which means that I'll be seeing it a week or so later than I would have liked. If only he had not endorsed Welsley Clark, I might be persuaded to shell out the money for the ticket, but I just can't bring myself to do it.
-
I'll see it if I can get in for free. I already think it's a load of crap from what I've heard though.
-
Much better than I expected.
-
Trying to go and see it sometime soon.
-
micheal moore is very good at what he does. and that is using people's emotions to achieve his own political ends. It's probably best not to see the movie so you're not taken in by his mental dark wizardry.
-
If someone is uninformed enough not to have their own opinion, and expects to have it spoon-fed to them, then they deserve to be indoctrinated. I mean, if you just blindly follow whatever some figurehead tells you, and not even a political scientist but an entertainer, then thats not my problem.
That why I'm immune to his "dark wizardry" (lol, nice one). Becuase I know a little something about what some other sources say, or at least I like to think I do, which is a bit more than I can say for Moore's average supporter. And more importantly, because I make a conscious effort to disagree with everyone who's ideas are presented to me.
In any case, Moore isn't doing anything for the left that Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage or Limbagh aren't doing for the right, and they're much worse in regards to the general level of stupidity and misinformedness. Keep in mind, in a fair world, Michael Moore would have his own national TV station, several radio stations and a media that is much closer to his viewpoints than to his enemies. That is to say, he would have everything the right has today.
-
We can all live in happiness that he doesn't though. :)
-
i'm going to see it. definately
-
Just saw it, took it with a grain of salt. Michael Moore I must admit is an excellent film-maker. But I can't honestly call this movie a documentary. It will NEVER be in the same boat as National Geographic. It mearly is presented as one.
Objectivity is an ESSENTIAL foundation to a documentary. This movie has an obvious Michael Moore agenda (interesting how this movie was released during a presidential election). I think I can safely call this a propoganda flick, not unlike the work of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels (also a well thought out and put together film, essencially romanticizing the Nazi agenda and promoting social Darwinism).
On the other hand, Moore raised many questions that I am more than curious to get the answers to (especially regarding Bush - BinLadin family ties). Moore gets a gold star for bringing to light questions that seem worth the pursuit of answers for. Moore gets an "F" for exploiting the hurting the families of those who lost loved ones during the Iraqi war as well as putting an obvious spin on supposed, well-edited factual information chunks.
-
I like how you compared Moore to a Nazi.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
We can all live in happiness that he doesn't though. :)
I'd live in more happiness if both sides had nothing. Including no political parties. :p
I want two parties:
The we don't change anything party.
The we change everything but can't agree on what we're going to change because we all hate one another party.
-
I've actually watched many of the Nazi propoganda films in my video art class. They were well put together, clever, and QUITE manipulative (and creative) with the use of half-truths. My Nazi comparison is only based on film comparison.
I do question Moore's patriotism when he says things like "Iraqi terrorists are "minutemen", American troops must shed blood"
-
Download your free copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 with Mike's blessing.
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/steal_this_movie/
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long as they're not doing it to make a profit, you know, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that."
-Michael Moore
The content of these sites do not reflect my own.
-
Micheal Moore Rocks, I have yet to see one person PROVE HIM to be a liar.
Someone with insight please show me where Micheal Moore is lying, i may consider re-evaluating how i feel about him. For now all anyone says is "he sucks" and to me thats not good enough proof to discredit the man.
-
[color=66ff00]Just found a brilliant site: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
I've rarely seen such brilliant bias, I know Moore has his own angle on 'the truth' but the things these people do to try and discredit him are so glaringly 'Bush friendly' that I can't help but laugh.
Also notice some of the ad's on this site are rather GWBush friendly?
http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/steal_this_movie/
As someone was once quoted: If you read tabloids you deserve to be manipulated.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Micheal Moore Rocks, I have yet to see one person PROVE HIM to be a liar.
Someone with insight please show me where Micheal Moore is lying, i may consider re-evaluating how i feel about him. For now all anyone says is "he sucks" and to me thats not good enough proof to discredit the man.
I'm still doing my OWN homework on what Moore was presenting as "truth", but here is column I found on his last work "Bowling for Columbine"
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
I am also a video editor and even I understand the power of manipulation. Hell, if I were given enough facts, footage and speeches, on a given subject, I too can EASILY twist the truth into my own agenda. A couple of months back, I shot and edited a wedding for a particular couple. There was some much footage I had to take out to make it the romantic video that they expected. For fun (and being underpaid for the gig) I took the same footage and put together another video making it seem that they hate each by messing around with the order in which I presented the footage.
-
You want to know what I think?
This guys uses about the same propaganda Hitler used in his own regime. That part about "Gore won every election vote in the recount" when actually, reported in serveral newspapers, news sources, and just about everywhere else, Gore only won a single one.
And then there is the picture of the happy children in Iraq, running over grassy plains and flying a kite, all of this "Horray! Horray!" going on. Do you really think it was like that? Grassy fields? Flying kites? Horray horrah? They make it seem like we have destroyed some kind of PARADISE for christs sake.
Mr. Moore is a proagandist and a jackass. I dont like him. Even liberal and socialist people I know think he is a complete moron.
-
I wish I had alot of money, then I could propagandist and a jackass... *grunt* go on... :p
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Mr. Moore is a proagandist and a jackass. I dont like him. Even liberal and socialist people I know think he is a complete moron.
Makes him the perfect counter to Bush then doesn't it? :D An equal and opposite force.
-
[color=66ff00]Exactly what I was thinking Kara. :nod:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]
Also notice some of the ad's on this site are rather GWBush friendly?
http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/steal_this_movie/
[/color]
lol no they don't, he's making fun of them :D :p
Look at the "Bush-Cheney 04" t-shirt... it has a skeleton with a gun and a military uniform with the flag on his shoulder, and it says "Freedom isn't Free, Peace isn't Pretty" :p :p :p
-
[color=66ff00]lol that's what I get for a quick scan of the page. :lol:
[/color]
-
Michael Moore is very astute politically, but, having read Dumb White Men, I feel he has fallen over the line into the 'Please hate all white males' brigade, which is rather embarassing considering he is a white male.
He made some wonderful truths, like how blacks/hispanics always seem to work on reception desks just so the company can say 'look, we're an equal opportunity employer!' But then, he also seemed to try and imply that males are dying out because we are no longer needed, which just goes to show how weak his grip on evolution actually is ;)
As far as the US elections go, I seem to recall that he was more annoyed about the selected removal of anyone who was black and had the same surname of anyone who was a criminal from the electorial role in Florida, at the fact that overseas votes for Bush were counted when they were dated after the election etc.
Bush bull****ted his way in, I don't think anyone doubts that, it was just lucky for him that Daddy has a lot of pals in the Supreme Court ;)
-
I can't speak for Fahrenheit 9/11, since I haven't seen that, but based on what I have seen, I take Michael Moore for a brilliant filmmaker from a dramatic viewpoint, yet heavily biased from a documentaristic viewpoint. He likes to juggle with the facts, and sometimes so obviously that it kinda discredits him. But his films are always interesting, and since I agree with him in general (even though he has the tendency to throw his viewpoints into the hyperbole), and he does do a wonderful job smiting his foes.
-
More like a wonderful job of spreading hateful propoganda.
When I think about it, and I mean really think about it, I have never seen so much hate, so much animosity shown towards one man. It is like he is the reincarnation of the anti-christ or something. Even people who dont even live in this country, nor have any idea what goes on here just hate him. People hate him just because their friends said something at the dinner table they dont remember.
In fact, speaking in one game of Natural Selection, just to annoy my teammates I started singing. The player "AmIAnnoyingNow" told me to, instead, talk about Politics. I said, "What do you guys think about Bush" and most of them said "I hate him".
Now, Liberals would chalk this up as "Case Closed, they dont like him. We win." but instead, I asked them "Why". None of them gave me a reason. They just said "he has the intelligence of a 5 year old" and that was about the only thing I heard. A few other things were "I dont like his policies" and I asked which policies, and he said "I dont know. I just dont like them". You see, even the most dim-witted people who have no idea what his middle initial probably is, hate him for no particular reason at all. Most of our media is a liberal media, and love to put a large spin on just about everything they here, or leave it out if it, in any way, supports George W. Bush.
People may say he's a bad president, but he managed to do what Clinton couldnt, and that is mainly put the economy back up to snuff and open more jobs. Unemployment has gone down and economy is up, and instead of just random bombing in Iraq we went ahead and just went in there to finish the job. People say they dont want us there, when for some reason the Iraqi citizens in one town have actually banded together to help stop terrorism themselves. Its a Neighborhood Watch to look out for terrorists now, and when they found one they found some soldiers, they looked into it, and this guy was gonna bomb any random building in the town.
Mike Moore is just putting his foot in his mouth with this movie. He thinks he can attract an intelligence audience, when in reality all he has is dumb-****s who visited his movie. People realize this is all a bunch of crap and therefor regard it as something to laugh about. I am, indeed, one of those people.
And now at the end of my post, I am just going to save everyone the trouble, and know that everyone here at HLP hates Bush, save for maybe one or two annonymous people, and I will counter-attacked and flamed for even so much as liking the guy. That is fine. In fact since you guys show so much hatred for just one person then why not share some of that with the rest of us who still regard others as humans who still make mistakes. Running a country is hard, especially when you are getting two different opinions: haters and people with brains...
-
*Runs away*
Oh boy, I am so not going to reply to that ;)
-
Ha ha ha.
Why don't you put on a little pink dress and cry like a girl too while you're here.
-
If that was directed towards me and intend as a joke, then it's not funny...
-
Mr. Moore == Democratic National Propagandist
I saw a comment comparing him to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. :lol: That's funny. Rush, Sean and the rest don't make me pay $7-$12 to get their POV or understand their feelings.
Let's understand something right now. President Bush is not stupid, ignorant or dumb. His speech patterns have evoloved from him choosing his words so he doesn't say something stupid or dumb or ignorant. You should try it sometime.
-
Again, I am sure he is talking to me, right?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
His speech patterns have evoloved from him choosing his words so he doesn't say something stupid or dumb or ignorant.
Problem is, he still does............
'These are are folks who have hijacked a great religion and then take innocent life. And that's a huge difference between America.'
Sept 27th 2002 - Denver Colorado.
''There was certainly a very strong sentiment that we're on the right track when it comes to holding people to account who lie, steat or cheal, cheat, or steal-who defraud people by cooking the books.'
Ausust 16th 2002 - Crawford, Texas.
''If you don't have any ambitions, the minimum wage job isn't going to get you where you want to get"
August 2002 - Little Rock, Arkansas.
'And most importantly, Alma Powell, secretary of Colin Powell is with us"
January 2003 - Washington.
''Let me tell you my thoughts about tax relief. When your economy is kind of oochin' along, it's important to let people have more of their own money.'
October 2002 - Boston, Massachusetts.
:p
-
"Because I didn't say it, it cannot be true" - Liberal Devil's Advocate.
Sometimes you people astound me.
-
Its phrases guys. Go find speech crap-ups in your favorite presidents and I am sure you will find them. :rolleyes:
I cant believe someone judges character just because someone screws up speech. What kind of heartless idiotic bastards are you?
-
Didnt see the movie nor do i plan to unless somebody else pays for my ticket... hmm maybe not.
As far as free speech is concerned this guy has a legal right to make a movie about whatever he wants. The part that i dont think is right is broadcasting it as a "documentary" which is supposed to be objective facts and as anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure it has nothing but venom and hatred towards the administration.
I also heard a comment somewhere about a comparison between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore and how he is the Democrat limbaugh or something like that. Moore is a loose cannon and it doesnt seem prudent to place him as an icon when he could explode at any minute.
Nice quotes Flipside :lol:
The guy isnt the best speaker in the world, but better to have a bad speaker and a man of action like Bush than a profound manipulative speaker like Bill Clinton who's speaches seemed satisfying but with no action at all.
-
Is it really so bad? Moore gives another voice, and a good one at that. Sometimes pure silliness, sometimes brilliant insight, sometimes pulled out of whole cloth.
I have yet to see the film, but if it's done with the same detail as his past efforts, I strongly doubt I'll be disappointed.
-
Tin Can, 2 things....
1, Notice the :p smilie at the end and
2: LOSE THE PARANOIA! Sorry Admins, but it's really starting to piss me off now.
-
Its not paranoia. It unable to take saracasm anymore, due to the fact I overused it at one time and now have stopped using it altogether...
-
And cause you don't want to use it you feel everyone else has to give it up when addressing you? Who made you Lord High God of speech?
If you want to talk politics you're going to have to learn to suck it up when someone is sarcastic about something.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Mr. Moore == Democratic National Propagandist
I saw a comment comparing him to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. :lol: That's funny. Rush, Sean and the rest don't make me pay $7-$12 to get their POV or understand their feelings.
Let's understand something right now. President Bush is not stupid, ignorant or dumb. His speech patterns have evoloved from him choosing his words so he doesn't say something stupid or dumb or ignorant. You should try it sometime.
Did you miss the whole part where he endorsed downloading the movie? I don't like Moore anymore than the next guy that doesn't like Moore, but he needs to pay his bills either way, and movies are just the medium that he uses to express his views. It's not like he also has a TV or Radio show.
And yes he is. He's just finally caught on to the joke of his own laughability, that's all.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Its not paranoia. It unable to take saracasm anymore, due to the fact I overused it at one time and now have stopped using it altogether...
Err... good for you. :yes:
-
Plz don't take this personally, as most of the time I'm on your POV but.........
Originally posted by Liberator
I saw a comment comparing him to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. That's funny. Rush, Sean and the rest don't make me pay $7-$12 to get their POV or understand their feelings.
as they say, you get what you pay for.
-
And in this case we're getting ripped off because that jackass charges us for a ****TY point of view...
-
He doesn't charge for a ****ty point of view, you get it for free :)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
And in this case we're getting ripped off because that jackass charges us for a ****TY point of view...
I think you're ripping me off! Your point of view is ****TY!
:lol:
Originally posted by Flipside
He doesn't charge for a ****ty point of view, you get it for free :)
Same could be said for tincan... I guess I get what I paid for either way... ;)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Same could be said for tincan... I guess I get what I paid for either way... ;)
Amen brotha! :lol:
-
Anyway, it's like all things, a nugget of gold in a mountain of rubble is still a nugget of gold.
The simple fact that Mr Moore CAN find things to point his finger at, even if he uses them to serve his own personal agenda, does mean those things exist and it is that fact which should be considered, not that he's trying to find fault in American, but that he DOES find fault in America.
Don't judge the message by the messenger, and just because he may fluff some of the stuff does not mean that at least a percentage of the questions he asks aren't worth wondering what the answer is :)
-
just look at it this way:
if you pay for f-9/11 you're making sure mike moore has a large bacon-cheeseburger budget
no i didn't see it and don't plan to
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I think you're ripping me off! Your point of view is ****TY!
:lol:
Same could be said for tincan... I guess I get what I paid for either way... ;)
I friggin hate all of you...
-
1. Saying the US media is liberal is like saying that Hitler really enjoyed porkin' his black, Jewish, communist boyfriend. Its a victim mentality. Despite the fact that the media is so right-ward slanted that it borders in the obscene, certain people keep going on about the liberal media and how they're trying to destroy Christianity etc etc.
2. The only part I really went into on the Bowling for truth website, the What a Wonderful World montage, is really pathetic. It mentions something like "Mossadegh was a socialist" to counter the claim that he was killed by the Shah. I don't know about the other bits, but then I really don't care as much, being mostly interested in foreign policy.
3. Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al do charge for their points of view. Check out their books, last time I checked you still have to pay for those. The only reason Moore is charging for his viewpoints is because there is no channel left-ward enough to broadcast hi, where as the right has Fox.
But thats kind of a moot point. Whether soe charges or not, that has no affect at all on the content of the media they put out.
4. Moore is not in good standing with the Democrats. Saying that he's a propagandist for them is absurd. He slags them as often as he promotes them.
5. And finally, just so we can all sleep a little easier at night, Michael Moore and his supporters are not representative of the intelect of an average American leftist, much less those outside America. He's an entertainer and not a political scientist. If you want really arguements, realy scholarly analysis and so forth, go to Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. If you want to sit in a theatre and have your prejudices confirmed, go see Moore's film.
for me, these two are not mutually exclusive, though I regard Moore as an entertainer and not the best source for political analysis.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I friggin hate all of you...
We love you too, cupcake.
-
:nod:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If you want really arguements, realy scholarly analysis and so forth, go to Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.
Have you read Zinn's Twentieth Century?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I friggin hate all of you...
Your words make me bleed... :(
Some of Moore's views I agree with, some I don't, but I'm not paying for the movie. Mainly because I only pay for movies I really want to see.
-
BLEEEEEEED! :mad:
-
You are a very strange person, and I can't shake the feeling you're on some kind of enormous wind-up ;)
-
KT: nope. For some reason my local Chapters, despite being a huge, monopolistic chain of bookshops, doesn't have all that great a variety of political/social books. Even getting The People's History of the United States required the whole elaborate process where one of their branches ordered the book, then sent it to another branch for pickup.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
BLEEEEEEED! :mad:
How old are you?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Noam Chomsky
It's really interesting how the guy who came up with the Chomsky Hierarchy seems to be more well known for his political contributions... :)
-
Rictor, just out of curiosity, have you watched the Fox news chanel?
IIRC it's banned in Canada. and I think you've held it up as an example of the '~ultimate right wing propaganda tool in exsistence~', more than once. not saying it is or isn't, just wondering how you've come to have such a firm conclusion if it is indeed banned there.
and Moore could have probly gotten PBS to broadcast it, if nothing else, I'd put money on CBS airing it too.
-
FOX News banned in Canada?
Since when? By who?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
FOX News banned in Canada?
Since when? By who?
By sensible minded people everywhere?
I've seen FOX news via Sky.... it strikes me very much as the most tabloid news channel I've seen - i.e. no big words, aimed at the thicker end of the market, more spin than facts. Redneck TV, even.
-
1. Saying the US media is liberal is like saying that Hitler really enjoyed porkin' his black, Jewish, communist boyfriend. Its a victim mentality. Despite the fact that the media is so right-ward slanted that it borders in the obscene, certain people keep going on about the liberal media and how they're trying to destroy Christianity etc etc.
:wtf: Uhh... how have you been defining "media?" ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC? Those are right-winged? They have never been right-winged ever. Remember the abu-grab "scandal?" who were the ones playing the story over and over and over and over again to no sensible purpose? What about Bush's dental records back in February or March and how they were demanding he release them. Remember when Bush launched his campaign ad's and how they coached the "9/11 victims" to come in and say how they were "offended?" You ever heard of Dan Rather?
There are 2 major mediums where the right-wing operates: talk-radio and Fox News. There are some other things like National Review and Drudge Report but as far as the TV media is concerned they would like nothing better to see Bush killed because he is temporarily halting their extreme left-winged agenda.
-
Maybe the vast majority of the US media is neither right nor left wing, and you're* just saying it is because it has the gall to post a story which disagrees with your politicial views?
*i.e. people
-
It always makes me laugh how the Right wing Americans on this board act like they're victims even though they have a right-wing president in power :D
Seriously guys. Drop the we're so victimised routine.
-
I'm around 99% sure that Fox is NOT banned in Canada. Nope, Fox has its own channel, Fox 29, that broadcasts out of Buffalo and is even on the basic cable package. True, they play cartoons, sitcoms and so forth, but for a good chunk of the time, Fox News is what it broadcasts. CNN, MSNBC and ABC all have their own channels here, so I don't think that anyone is censoring anything.
I've watched Fox many time before, especially during the war. I did it mostly for the comedy, switching between them and CNN. Just because I don't live in America, doesn't mean I don't know jack about American media.
DeepSpace9r: well, those mostly point to them sensationalizing the news, sort of like they did with the Howard Dean yell. If you look at their coverage before and during the war, you will see that they basically said whatever the White House spokesman said, without having a single independent thought. The media's job is not to be a mouthpiece for the government, they are supposed to question and investigate. And then during the war, they had that whole "embedded journalists" thing.
Also, notice how at press conferences, they always take it easy on Bush, always asking him softball question. It usually take a foreign journalist, like the Irish one a few days ago, to put some pressure on Bush & Co to answer the real question.
They never, ever attempted to portray the story objectively, only from the American side. They refuse to show civilian casualties, they refuse to report corruption within the CPA, they refuse to hold politicians accountable.
edit:
News is what someone is trying to supress, all the rest is just advertising.
-Some famous journalist, cant recall his name-
-
Not seen f-9/11 yet, but I will when I get the chance. His movies are too biased to be classed as documentaries, but they do ask very serious questions, that need to be answered.
-
Seen it, got it free from moorelies.com and its not illegal so dont hack up my post unnecessarily like other places have. Mr. Moore has in fact allowed his movie to be distributed on the internet, as long as no one profits from it he doesnt care for copyright.
What did i think of the movie?
I think it was informative, and an eye opener on how things really work with G.W. Bush and his family and the Saudi Royals. Im Glad Moore researched this stuff and even happier no one can really discredit the film on a grande scale, all ive seen people say he lied about is small trivial things which bear no impact on the movie. Bush reminds me of a mongaloid child, except mongaoloids are nicer, smarter, and more respectful then this president. The fact he sat there to read a child book during his countries worst defeats is living proof he doesnt know a shred of what to do. I myself, had i gotten the news in that position would of quickly left the elementry school and head back to command and control to assess the situation. As commander in cheif its his responsibility to make things happen, not everyone around him. This puppet president is a joke and im glad Moore exposed him.
What do i think or Mr. Moore?
A little over the top, and he does like to make things look worse then they are at times, however he does nothing different then lets say what a CNN does during wartime, or the BBC, or even Al-Jeezera. All Moore is doing is writing his facts and opinions on a backboard of his choosing, and asks you the American people to listen with an open mind and make a decision.
I think he needs to go more along the lines of fact finding and feeding rather then the way he does it, but all in all his message got sent, and im listening. It takes a great man to stand up for whats right and i think mr. Moore is a great man.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Not seen f-9/11 yet, but I will when I get the chance. His movies are too biased to be classed as documentaries, but they do ask very serious questions, that need to be answered.
I dont know if its TOO Biased, i mean all i saw in the movie was stories of bush, and his family, while moore gave his views on some things, i wouldnt say its too biased. It is biased but everything he found on bush is fact, therefore even if bias is an issue, you cant quell facts like those and if you can then i would say the film is too biased, however, as it stands nothing is proven wrong from the movie so i have to say its quite a peice of journalistic work, twisted to piss some people off (bush and his lackey's)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm around 99% sure that Fox is NOT banned in Canada. Nope, Fox has its own channel, Fox 29, that broadcasts out of Buffalo and is even on the basic cable package. True, they play cartoons, sitcoms and so forth, but for a good chunk of the time, Fox News is what it broadcasts. CNN, MSNBC and ABC all have their own channels here, so I don't think that anyone is censoring anything.
I've watched Fox many time before, especially during the war. I did it mostly for the comedy, switching between them and CNN. Just because I don't live in America, doesn't mean I don't know jack about American media.
DeepSpace9r: well, those mostly point to them sensationalizing the news, sort of like they did with the Howard Dean yell. If you look at their coverage before and during the war, you will see that they basically said whatever the White House spokesman said, without having a single independent thought. The media's job is not to be a mouthpiece for the government, they are supposed to question and investigate. And then during the war, they had that whole "embedded journalists" thing.
Also, notice how at press conferences, they always take it easy on Bush, always asking him softball question. It usually take a foreign journalist, like the Irish one a few days ago, to put some pressure on Bush & Co to answer the real question.
They never, ever attempted to portray the story objectively, only from the American side. They refuse to show civilian casualties, they refuse to report corruption within the CPA, they refuse to hold politicians accountable.
edit:
News is what someone is trying to supress, all the rest is just advertising.
-Some famous journalist, cant recall his name-
We get Fox news in Canada, Saturday at 6pm EST. Thats the only time we get fox news, and its always about good things.
CNN in Canada is a huge US propaganda machine. Everytime you turn to CNN its "WAR ON TERROR" or "TERROR ALERT HIGH!" or something to try and scare me into beleiving in the US government.
The war is heavily censored, the fact we cant see the dead soldeirs coffins is proof of that. The fact we dont get any reports out of baghdad except what is "approved" proves that as well.
You want real news, go to guerrillanews.com and get away from the US censorship thats all over north america, not just the US.
-
Any man who describes the Very Hungry Caterpillar as his favourite childhood book worries me...why? Because GW Bush was born in 1956, The Very Hungry Caterpillar was released in 1969, when GW Bush was 13 years old.
Anyone who has read this book will understand that this is NOT a book read by your average 13 year old, more like 5 year olds :)
Whilst checking this out, I came across this interesting and rather worrying link....
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/141003conspiracyofsilence.html
Obviously biased, as the website shows, but as I said before, a mountain of rubble can contain a gold nugget ;)
-
I said the fox news chanel not the fox network and from this "We get Fox news in Canada, Saturday at 6pm EST." it sounds like you don't get it, but it's being brought in by some other network. if I were to ask what is on the fox news chanel right now could you tell me? if not then you arn't getting it.
anyway, I was just reading that one post and remebered hearing that Fox news was banned in Canada and thought "wait how can he be saying this if he's never watched it"
-
Trust me, Fox isn't banned. If it is banned, they're doing a terrible job of it. I distinctly remember watching Fox News, and this was for months and months. Now that I think about it, I don't really remember if it was 2 channels, one for news and one for general, or whether the general channel carried the news at times. Its possible that we get both.
The one thing that we don't get, and its a pity, is BBC. All the American news stations are on, but hardly any other news channel except for a Canadian one named CBC.
No, I couldn't tell you whats on Fox right now, ask someone who has a TV.
-
We (I) get the BBC at certain times of the day through the same channel that gives me PBS.
-
I think the fox network (the entertaiment chanel) carried the fox news feed for about a month or so during the war, if you have two chanels then you probly do indeed have fox news and thus I heard wrong, but if it has cartoons and stuff it's _not_ the fox news chanel.
ok, /*swiches on FNC*/ hannity and colms is on right now, who is hannity talking to right now, if you can't answer you don't get the chanel.
though if you don't have it it doesn't prove that it's banned, just that it's not available in your area, there are plenty of places that don't have it in the US.
-
from what i currently read ... all the "americans" here support bush (dont know if theyr afraid of him or something)
i on the other hand have always thought of bush on the same terms as "president Clark" from Babylon 5 ..... a powerhungry son of a *****
and im currently watching the movie so i might change my opinnion ... doubt it very much though ...
oh and on a side note Fahrenheit 9/11 was banned in USA (last i heard)
-
:wtf: Err.. no it wasn't. Moore couldn't find anyone who wanted to produce it.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Any man who describes the Very Hungry Caterpillar as his favourite childhood book worries me...why? Because GW Bush was born in 1956, The Very Hungry Caterpillar was released in 1969, when GW Bush was 13 years old.
Anyone who has read this book will understand that this is NOT a book read by your average 13 year old, more like 5 year olds :)
:lol: ROTFLMAO
-
So now we go from Mike Moores movie to why everyone thinks Bush is stupid...
What a bunch of haters... :doubt:
-
The entire movie is about why everyone thinks Bush is stupid. Next you'll complain about people discussing WWII after watching Saving Private Ryan :)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
So now we go from Mike Moores movie to why everyone thinks Bush is stupid...
What a bunch of haters... :doubt:
I hope you see your own irony there, buddy. It's appauling, and I hope you don't think like that in the Real World™.
-
.:Tin Can:. is a legend around here, Oh man this is aweful! Tin Can, I gave you advice and yet you still call people names and can be obnoxious at times. Man, Tin Can, I feel bad for you but, you will never learn.
-
I would normally not reply to posts like his, but the problem is KT is that he does, anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view is either racist or stupid or a hater. It is thinking like a Dictator, such as Saddam or Castro, where anyone who doesn't agree with his view is wrong, or possibly evil.
Indoctrination at it's worst I'm afraid :(
-
On the other hand, it could be he has a stronger fact base to work from, but it seems 'fact' has become a mere matter of opinion. Some would call Hussein Mr. Evil Dictator, but there were a great number of people who benefitted from his rule and would give anything to have him back.
Funny how that works.
I don't agree with everything Moore says. Some of his interesting parallels are TRULY stretched, but it gives a voice for those who disagree.
People like to harp on him about it. Of course, those are also the same people who were undoubtedly mailing bullets to the Dixie Chicks' fan club because they had the 'nerve' to speak out against the war (in a very respectful manner, I might add).
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I would normally not reply to posts like his, but the problem is KT is that he does, anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view is either racist or stupid or a hater. It is thinking like a Dictator, such as Saddam or Castro, where anyone who doesn't agree with his view is wrong, or possibly evil.
Indoctrination at it's worst I'm afraid :(
And here I was, before comming to the forums three years ago, thinking that this sort of thing was the stuff of myth... and evil world leaders...
Now I can truly see first hand how folks like Bush get into office in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now I can truly see first hand how folks like Bush get into office in the first place.
expand? I'm curious.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I would normally not reply to posts like his, but the problem is KT is that he does, anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view is either racist or stupid or a hater. It is thinking like a Dictator, such as Saddam or Castro, where anyone who doesn't agree with his view is wrong, or possibly evil.
Indoctrination at it's worst I'm afraid :(
-
It's not my point of VIEW that is under fire, its Bush himself. He stumbled over a few words in a speech and the crowd goes NUTS. The next day newspapers put out "He said cat, instead of cash. What a looser!"
-
Right, then there's the whole Iraq thing... and UN Iraq thing... the Christian-Right Wing thing... the oil thing... and pretzel thing...
Bassically you're saying that people are 'haters' because they don't agree how Bush runs government, and of course people are going ot make fun of his less than scholarly approach to being the President, especially if they don't like how he is running the country. It's all apart of politics.
I don't think any sane person dislikes Bush because he chokes on pretzels, but because he runs the United States like he's choking on a pretzel.
-
Social Interia is a funny thing, and the papers will follow it like a dog because it means money. So if the papers with 'Silly Bush' stories are outselling papers with 'Nice Bush' stories, you need to stop and think 'why?'
Oh, on the quotes front, heres a mishmash I found that are all rather funny, and they are multi-national, so no chance of annoying anyone.
http://drsaeed.8m.com/politicalquotes.html
Theres an awesome collection of Churchill quotes at the end that some of you may enjoy ;)
-
Churchill is the best. :D :yes:
-
Tincan: if we imagine anti-Bush sentiment to be an ice-cream sundae, his policies are the ice-cream and his personality is the cherry on top. That is to say that his policies are, or should be, the reason for the criticism. The fact that he's a moron only serves to sweeten the deal and draw the spotlight to his policies.
Lets not mince words, you and I both know that Bush is stupid. Thats nothing unique really, there are thosuands of people as stupid as he is. But, they don't have their finger on the button. They can't start a war, they cant cut social programs, they don't make taxes policy.
Bush didn't "slip up" once or twice. He can't speak the English language, plain and simple. 99% of highschool students could do better. Then, there is the fact that he is inept. He has never earned a thing in his life. Every single job, every single dollar, every single achievement has been handed to him on a silver platter. While a factory worker of greater intelect than Bush works 15 hour days just to support his family, Bush has never worked a day in his life. And yet, he is respected, he is powerful, and lives a life of luxury and ease.
Then, there is the fact that he believes that God is speaking to him. Can you imagine that the most powerful man in the world is making decisions based on what the voice of God whispers in his ear? Thats so wrong, I can't even begin to descirbe it. What if God tells him to destroy Sweden? He also believe that we are living in the End Times, and that Armaggedon is just around te corner. So, to prepare the world for the Second Coming, he must destroy the enemies of Israel. Basically, he's suicidal. It doesn't matter what he does, because he believes that Jesus is coming to save him and destroy all the sinners. Does this not bother you? So, there is no need to preserve the environment, cause the Earth is going up n smoke anyway.
The fact is, Bush is not only stupid beyond any acceptable level, he is also certifiably insane. Joan of Arc had that whole "God is speaking to me" thing too and look how she ended up.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Then, there is the fact that he believes that God is speaking to him. Can you imagine that the most powerful man in the world is making decisions based on what the voice of God whispers in his ear? Thats so wrong, I can't even begin to descirbe it. What if God tells him to destroy Sweden? He also believe that we are living in the End Times, and that Armaggedon is just around te corner. So, to prepare the world for the Second Coming, he must destroy the enemies of Israel. Basically, he's suicidal. It doesn't matter what he does, because he believes that Jesus is coming to save him and destroy all the sinners. Does this not bother you? So, there is no need to preserve the environment, cause the Earth is going up n smoke anyway.
That or he's truely the Anti-Christ...
-
Flipside: paltry attempt, at best. Try again peasant :D:D
http://www.onpower.org/quotes/quotes.html
-
It's not how long it is, it's the quality of it's contents :p
hehehehe
Seriously though, nice list :D
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Then, there is the fact that he believes that God is speaking to him. Can you imagine that the most powerful man in the world is making decisions based on what the voice of God whispers in his ear? Thats so wrong, I can't even begin to descirbe it. What if God tells him to destroy Sweden? He also believe that we are living in the End Times, and that Armaggedon is just around te corner. So, to prepare the world for the Second Coming, he must destroy the enemies of Israel. Basically, he's suicidal. It doesn't matter what he does, because he believes that Jesus is coming to save him and destroy all the sinners. Does this not bother you? So, there is no need to preserve the environment, cause the Earth is going up n smoke anyway.
That's true... :nod:
-
you're right, yours has teh funnays.
Oregon Democratic Senate candidate Tom Bruggere, in describing his support for comprehensive health care during a candidates' forum, said he supported "erection-to-resurrection" coverage. He later amended that to "cradle to grave."
-- News report
If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war.
-- Pentagon official, on why US military censored graphic footage from the Gulf War
I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!
-- Will Rogers
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
yes, I realize this isn't a quotes thread, I just liked these.
-
(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_lordoftherings.jpg)
-
So we go to Mike Moore's movie to Bush's policies...
Originally posted by Flipside
Any man who describes the Very Hungry Caterpillar as his favourite childhood book worries me...why? Because GW Bush was born in 1956, The Very Hungry Caterpillar was released in 1969, when GW Bush was 13 years old.
Anyone who has read this book will understand that this is NOT a book read by your average 13 year old, more like 5 year olds
I'm pretty sure we all know what this is implying. Its not about policy or abotu what he did wrong, its just an intelligence degradent.
We know there are stupid people in the world. We know there are very stupid people in the world. We know that there are just liars and propogandists in the world. (Nudge Nudge: Michael Moore)
You can dislike the president and what he does, but kindly think about him as a person and respect him. It falls into the same category as a drill saregeant: He isnt very smart, he's mean to you all the time and his breath smells like old man's fart, but you had better show some respect. The guy is old, the guy is from west Texas, the guy is under fire for the stupidest of reasons.
Why did we vote him into office? Because he was a better choice than Al Gore. He's not the best, but he is better than Al Gore.
On the basis of him not working a day in his life: read some of his biography's and check out sections. You will find he did work. Just because he's loaded doesnt mean he just lounged at the table.
As for me being upset at the moment: I have been under a great, great deal of stress and have been easily aggrivated over the last few days. People I know and love have moved away, I've had to cancel some of my projects that I found fun, there are projects I have yet to do that I cannot start yet, things I am bad at yet I signed up for them (IE: Voice acting. You guys say my voice is good but I think it sucks!) and also being insulted on some of the Natural Selection servers I play, only to have an admin show up later on and accuse me of starting the whole ordeal.
Luckily, I'm going on vacation in a week, to the flat, yet hilly areas of South Dakota. It's an 18 hour drive, so, bring a CD Player and a Book. Maybe when I'm away from technology for quite some time and I come back, I'll feel better. I get to blow stuff up.
-
Why should I show respect for someone who directly affects me in his decisions and policies who also goes about screwing things over? The job of being president isn't about respect and superiority (like a king or emperor). Being president is about making *decisions* and making *good* ones (for the country).
-
The president is not the all-powerful god-like being people insist on. If everyone disliked him like that so much, then we would have kicked him out of office. Remember, the president still has to go through the usual channels to do something of his liking.
-
That wasn't my point at all. I'm saying he *isn't* one, hence we've no reason to respect him like we would for an emperor or king in a feudal government.
-
I didnt say the kind of respect like fear him, I mean respect him as a person. He an old man, show some sympathy and compasion.
-
Micheal Moore may not be saying what you want to hear. But that does not mean that every word he is saying is a lie, it's just easier to believe that than accept that the world is far more complex and unpleasant than we like to believe. Yes, I'll freely accept that Michael Moore talks some complete crap about some things, he also talks sense about other things.
If I'd said the Very Hungry Caterpillar thing about, Chirac or Putin, you'd would not even have mentioned it. Equality is the great Equaliser, nothing else.
Yes, he has a very difficult and responsible job, but he's not doing it very well, it's as simple as that, a Drill Seargent who get's his men killed won't keep their respect for long :( The reason, even in the US, that people are jumping on his every little hiccup is the same reason the same thing is happening to Blair in the UK. His popularity has gone.
Like freedom, respect is something that is earned, fought for, and to my own Phsyche, Bush has done nothing in his Presidency, of world awareness, that I would consider admiring him for. That is not because of bias, it is because of the facts.
As far as the voting thing is concerned, have a look at this....
Check http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm
by your own civil rights commission, and read about thousands of blacks who shared surnames with known criminals to be struck off the voting list, people who would have voted Gore oddly enough. Read how whilst a black woman was having her name checked, she saw an elderly white man allowed to vote despite not being on the list, and yet she was refused the right when hers wasn't. That was arranged by Katherine Harris, Bushes electorial co-adviser, at the behest of Jeb Bush, paid $4 million dollars for Database technologies to remove anyone who was a possible felon from the electorial roles. (Please note that Jeb Bush's wife was prosecuted for smuggling $19,000 dollars of jewellry into the country, and yet was NOT removed from the rolls). The instructions were specificly to remove even people with 'similar' names to known felons to cast as wide a net as possible.
This removed 66% of all Blacks and Hispanics from the electorial roll, of those that voted, 95+% voted for Gore. Of the excluded people, they even managed to include a lady by the name of Linda Howell, who was black, oh yes, she was also the elections supervisor of Madison county.
So yes, we will derise him, because he is the most powerful man in the world and his own family are so corrupt it's terrifying.
One final thing, Fox announced Bush's victory before it had been declared in the court of law. Who was in charge of Fox's election coverage? A man named John Ellis, George W Bush's first cousin.
Edit : And sorry to hear about the problems :( Admins are normally such nice people :nervous:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I didnt say the kind of respect like fear him, I mean respect him as a person. He an old man, show some sympathy and compasion.
So by that logic we should also respect Saddam, Pol Pot and Hitler since they are also rulers.
What absolute nonsense. When Bush does something right I'll agree with him (For instance the mission to Mars thing). The problem is that I don't see him doing anything right at all.
I see him making mistake after mistake. When someone I know in real life does that I see no reason to go on pretending he's a great guy. If I see someone cleaning their car with petrol I decide right there and then that it's cause he's an idiot and can't see the concequences of his actions.
And Bush is precisely that sort of idiot. He has made mistake after mistake and yet you still think that he's worth your respect. You'd probably be telling us that he was worth our respect if he was arguing to push the button to nuke california.
He's led America into a war in Iraq that had nothing whatsoever to do with the causes he claimed when he proposed it. He's taken billions of dollars of tax payers money and given it away to the rich in tax cuts that only benefit millionaires.
And despite this and hundreds of other stupid policy decisions you're still telling us he's worthy of our respect.
Seriously TC, how far does this guys dick have to be up your arse before you realise that he's f**king you?
-
All the way?
-
Hitler, Sadaam, and Pol Pot harmed people with an intent. A bad intent, something you could call, oh I dont know, torture and murder? Not to mention purpousfully cause torture and murder?
President Bush doesnt kill people, the army does. Bush just wants it done, they do it however they feel best fits the situation. We still have rules. Those guys broke all the rules. How can you compare Bush to Hitler and Sadaam? Those two were murders, and Hitler was creating Genocide here... Your comparisons suck
He has made mistakes, but he has made good changes too. Liberals just LOVE to place the bad over the good...
On the note of "If I said Putin had read that book you wouldnt have brought it up" because I dont hear idiotic and stupid critism about those kind of people. If I did, I would have told you to cut them some slack.
-
Hitler, Sadaam also never killed... they made their armies do it. Your point?
-
Let's put it this way, when you come onto this board and say people are haters etc, you are passing on your opinion of them, which is, though not normally in that manner, what this board is for.
Whenever someone posts his or her work up on this board for people to see, They are presenting a statement, an object for appraisal, we see it, we judge it. The same thing is the case for George W Bush, I have seen his actions, and I have judged them. I am not American, by opinion will not affect W in the slightest, and Americans may feel perfectly free to ignore it, but I'll still have it. And since it is foolish to have opinions without giving the reasons so you can debate them, I include my reasoning as well :)
Was it Roosevelt who made a quote regarding criticising the President?
Edit : I don't so much hate Bush, as worry about his actions, and those of his cabinet. In the UK, it is common to rile the leader of the opposite party :)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Hitler, Sadaam, and Pol Pot harmed people with an intent. A bad intent, something you could call, oh I dont know, torture and murder? Not to mention purpousfully cause torture and murder?
President Bush doesnt kill people, the army does. Bush just wants it done, they do it however they feel best fits the situation. We still have rules. Those guys broke all the rules. How can you compare Bush to Hitler and Sadaam? Those two were murders, and Hitler was creating Genocide here... Your comparisons suck
He has made mistakes, but he has made good changes too. Liberals just LOVE to place the bad over the good...
On the note of "If I said Putin had read that book you wouldnt have brought it up" because I dont hear idiotic and stupid critism about those kind of people. If I did, I would have told you to cut them some slack.
If Bush is so 'good' (or even just average) at his job, why would people like me dislike him? Seriously, I've never cared about any US president, but even I can see we're staring into the abyss with this guy.
I don't care about what he's done in the US. What I care about, is what he's done to the rest of the world - and that is to make it a far more dangerous place for everyone.
A good leader wouldn't have invaded Iraq without considering the global ramifications, and sure as hell wouldn't have done so expecting to be greeted in the streets. A good leader wouldn't have alienated the vast majority of the UN by plunging forward into a war that was already proving massively divisive by it's possibility, either.
He's lied to the American public, and he's lied to the rest of the world. We were told Iraq was a serious current threat, that it had WMD and active connections to terrorist group. Neither has been proved, yet we sacrificied hundreds of troops and god knows how many innocent Iraqis in persuit of nothing more than a strategic oil supply.
We were told the 'war on terror' would be unconventional. It's been anything but - the number one target is still on the loose, and terrorists have been boosted by supporters as a result of what is seen to be American empire building.
Bush has achieved nothing for us - the British - yet we are supposed to be in a special relationship. So why I should have any respect for a man with the mental ability of a cucumber? and somehow, i don't think that's misunderestimating him.
-
Tin Can, my metric is very, very simple.
If a person, President or otherewise, cause innocent people to suffer or die, he is an asshole. Just that. No excuses, thats the standard. Break it, and I'm going to dislike you.
Now, lets get into some specifics, and you can refute them as we go.
1. Did Bush knowingly lie about WMD evidence before the war?
In all probability, yes.
2. Did the war in Iraq kill over 10,000 civilians and injure countless others?
Yes
3. Was the war, according to international law, illegal?
Yes, Bush commited a felony, and on this scale that is called war crimes or crimes against humanity.
4. Has America, under Bush, illegally occupied, and continues to occupy, two foreign nations?
Yes.
5. Is the Bush administration illegaly detaining several hundred prisoners in Guantanmo Bay and elsewhere?
Yes.
6. Has the Bush administration rolled back civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism? Have they frequently misused those laws to pursue other agendas and target innocent people?
Yes and yes.
7. Has Bush, for lack of a better description, given the finger to the environment?
Yes.
8. Has Bush created taxes which quite plainly benefit only the rich, and hurt the poor?
Yes.
9. Has Bush poured insane amounts of money into military spending, way out of proporation to any need for self defense. Is there a very strong probablity that this has been done to stuff the pockets of his friends in the "defense" industry?
Yes and yes.
10. Has the Bush administration worked tirelessly to cut social programs, healthcare and education, thereby hurting many American, especially the poor?
Yes.
-
But don't feel bad, half of that list can be applied to every US president in the past 60 years. I'm not just picking on Bush, I'm picking on the system that created him.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If a person, President or otherewise, cause innocent people to suffer or die, he is an asshole. Just that. No excuses, thats the standard. Break it, and I'm going to dislike you.
The Kim Sun-Il beheading video is now available on the Internet in it's entirety. No edits, no blackouts, and full sound.
You should go watch it. You should listen to that poor soul beg for his life while his captors stand behind him, proud, and masked. You should hear him bawling himself hoarse about how this is all a mistake and he just wants to go home. You should hear him beg forgiveness for doing his job. You should listen to him beg his country to save him.
Then you should listen to his captors give a speech in Arabic about the Great Cause Of Freedom, and the nobleness of their movement, and the consequences of opposing it.
Then you should listen what it sounds like to have your head sawed off by a blade. You don't die quickly. It is a sound that will burn in your little head forever. I find it doesn't suit me to describe it beyond that.
Then you should watch them praise God with their actions as they stack his head on what's left of his body.
Then maybe you'll have some idea of exactly who we're fighting, and who we're really fighting for.
-
two things, if I may.
1. I never, ever claimed to support people like that. They can all go to hell right along with Bush. And no, criticsing one side does not equal supporting the other.
2. We've been over this before, but lets do so again.
Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+. If killing one man makes you a barbarian, killing 10,000 (and close to a million more with sanctions) makes you the High Emperor of the Infinite Kingdom of All Barbarians.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
two things, if I may.
1. I never, ever claimed to support people like that. They can all go to hell right along with Bush. And no, criticsing one side does not equal supporting the other.
2. We've been over this before, but lets do so again.
Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+. If killing one man makes you a barbarian, killing 10,000 (and close to a million more with sanctions) makes you the High Emperor of the Infinite Kingdom of All Barbarians.
Wow. Well, that definately answered any questions I had.
And yes, you did claim to support people like that on many occasions, in principle if not in method. That's disturbing beyond description.
Oh wait, I get it. what was that you said? lessee here...
Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+.1,000,000 due to sanctions.
So you say Saddam has no accontability for what happened. I knew it. Sounds like 'supporting the other' to me.
All you're saying is, the butchering of Kim Sun-Il was absolutely justified. And you call yourself a liberal? I'm stunned. And they call ME a warmonger...
Of course, if it were your mother or other assorted loved one, you'd be singing a very different song. no doubt. As it's easy to support the war by having no concept of what war is really like, it's even easier to oppose it.
-
First, you never asked a question. Secondly, what I probably said is that I support the Iraqi insurgency. That is not the same as supporting this beheading, or any other. The people doing this are foriegn terrorists, and from what I'm reading lately, don't have the support of the Iraqi insurgency. The recent killing of over a hundred Iraqis by foriegn groups supporting the insurgency has mightily pissed of the Iraqi rebels.
As well, I may suppport the principle of liberation, without supporting every single act to accomplish it. I also support the concept of world peace, and will not stop supporting it if some wacko deicdes that the best way to achieve it is by gunning down people in the street. The concept is still good and valid, despite the actions practiced in its name. And since I support the concept of Iraqi freedom, and since the insurgency seems the best and only way to achieve it, I therefor support the insurgency. If there was some other, less violent way to achieve it, I would support that instead.
You other arguement, about how the loved ones of the victim feel different than I do, is pretty stupid. Guess what, most people on Earth hae a family and loved ones. That includes those killed in the bombing, the occupation and by the sanctions. I can bet you that the family of an Iraqi killed by cluster bombs feels every bit as bad as the family of the murdered Korean. Placing on in value over another is absurd, they were both equally innocent, and their lives were of equal worth.
I also don't understand your comment regarding war. I agree that its easy to support it without knowing what it truly is, but I don't agree about opposing it. Tell me, with the vast hindsight that we have now, can you honeslty tell me that any lasting good was achieved by war? Opposing war without knowing what it is really all about implies that there is some hidden good that I'm not seeing. Is there?
You're right of course, that I don't know what war is. And I hope never to find out. I will strive towards a world where no one knows what war truly is. I really don't see what thas such a bad thing.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
So you say Saddam has no accontability for what happened. I knew it. Sounds like 'supporting the other' to me.
All you're saying is, the butchering of Kim Sun-Il was absolutely justified. And you call yourself a liberal? I'm stunned. And they call ME a warmonger...
Of course, if it were your mother or other assorted loved one, you'd be singing a very different song. no doubt. As it's easy to support the war by having no concept of what war is really like, it's even easier to oppose it.
What the hell?
C'mon that pushing it, even for you. This goes way beyond intentional misinterpretation.
1. Saddam was partly responsible for the sanctions, sure. And he ought to be shot for his part in it. But I believe that the US bears the bigger burden, for barring humanitarian suplies and infrastructure equipment fro entering Iraq. I would like to know how Saddam could have used water treatement equipment for military purposes?
2. When did I say it was justified? Shut the hell up already, I have made it quite clear that I do not support the killing of civilains, including this.
Its not justified, for the simple reason that he had nothing to do with it. It was not justified, not even to as a means to ending the occupation, which I did not help at all incidentally. Not justified. Clear enough?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What the hell?
C'mon that pushing it, even for you. This goes way beyond intentional misinterpretation.
1. Saddam was partly responsible for the sanctions, sure. And he ought to be shot for his part in it. But I believe that the US bears the bigger burden, for barring humanitarian suplies and infrastructure equipment fro entering Iraq. I would like to know how Saddam could have used water treatement equipment for military purposes?
2. When did I say it was justified? Shut the hell up already, I have made it quite clear that I do not support the killing of civilains, including this.
Its not justified, for the simple reason that he had nothing to do with it. It was not justified, not even to as a means to ending the occupation, which I did not help at all incidentally. Not justified. Clear enough?
Oh yes, crystal clear.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
[SNIP]
Then maybe you'll have some idea of exactly who we're fighting, and who we're really fighting for.
Except that Saddam, for all his millions of other faults, actually kept the fundementalism DOWN in Iraq.
It was the invasion and the power vacuum it left that allowed fundementalists like that in.
If the americans really were after terrorists they would have sent the troops they sent into Iraq into Afghanistan instead where they may actually have done some good.
I'm all for wiping out the terrorist scum but the invasion of Iraq didn't help the cause. If they were after terrorists Saudi Arabia has more.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Except that Saddam, for all his millions of other faults, actually kept the fundementalism DOWN in Iraq.
It was the invasion and the power vacuum it left that allowed fundementalists like that in.
If the americans really were after terrorists they would have sent the troops they sent into Iraq into Afghanistan instead where they may actually have done some good.
I'm all for wiping out the terrorist scum but the invasion of Iraq didn't help the cause. If they were after terrorists Saudi Arabia has more.
Hit the nail on the head :nod:.
No-one here is for terrorism, but it's obvious that the US 'war on terror' has failed miserably. Hell, they even diverted some of their best Arabic speaking special ops people from the search from bin Ladin in order to operate in Iraq.
The only real victories against terrorism are those won by the domestic security services when they catch a bomber or foil a plot. All military action has achieved is creating martyrs and sowing the seeds of dissilusionment amongst the Arab world - i.e. creating the conditions which foster, rather than prevent, terrorism.
It's a strange assumption to make that the only way to fight terrorism is the Bush strategy.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
All military action has achieved is creating martyrs and sowing the seeds of dissilusionment amongst the Arab world - i.e. creating the conditions which foster, rather than prevent, terrorism.
In Afghanistan the military option worked reasonably well by making it so that no country would harbour Osama any more. It also had the effect of disrupting the terrorist cells.
Then instead of delivering the knock-out blow Bush decided to invade Iraq instead (Something he had actually been planing before 9/11!). This gave Osama a chance to reorganise himself in Afghanistan and the wilder parts of Pakistan.
You'll notice that almost the entire UN agreed with Bush on the invasion of Afghanistan. So it's not the case of everyone going against Bush just cause of who he is. I may think that he is a dick but I agreed 100% with why he had to go into Afghanistan and supported the entire campaign.
If you look you'll find that most of the people arguing against Bush now agreed with him over Afghanistan. What we disagree with is his current policy. Invading Iraq has done NOTHING to stop terrorist attacks in any country. It was a stupid idea poorly executed. The sooner Americans realise that and replace Bush with someone who can actually do something to even lessen the danger the better off they'll be.
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's a strange assumption to make that the only way to fight terrorism is the Bush strategy.
It's the propoganda line put out by Bush and his followers. They honestly believe that if you don't agree with Bush on every single bit of his foreign policy ideas you must support the terrorists.
Even when you point to the fact that the invasion of Iraq did absolutely nothing to stop terrorism they'll just keep spouting the rhetoric back at you.
Yet another example of how people will swallow The Big Lie if they hear it often enough.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
In Afghanistan the military option worked reasonably well by making it so that no country would harbour Osama any more. It also had the effect of disrupting the terrorist cells.
Then instead of delivering the knock-out blow Bush decided to invade Iraq instead (Something he had actually been planing before 9/11!). This gave Osama a chance to reorganise himself in Afghanistan and the wilder parts of Pakistan.
You'll notice that almost the entire UN agreed with Bush on the invasion of Afghanistan. So it's not the case of everyone going against Bush just cause of who he is. I may think that he is a dick but I agreed 100% with why he had to go into Afghanistan and supported the entire campaign.
If you look you'll find that most of the people arguing against Bush now agreed with him over Afghanistan. What we disagree with is his current policy. Invading Iraq has done NOTHING to stop terrorist attacks in any country. It was a stupid idea poorly executed. The sooner Americans realise that and replace Bush with someone who can actually do something to even lessen the danger the better off they'll be.
That's probably a fair point. But the military effect of Afghanistan has now been negated - i.e. Al-Queda is just as dangerous as it ever was, and possibly even more so. I think that war failed, because it wasn't backed up with the support needed to not only completely secure Afghanistan, but also to rebuild it into a moden nation-state.
When the Afghan war started, I was for it. Because it offered an opportunity - everything that was knocked down should have been rebuilt, 10 times better than it was before. i.e. it could have been used as an example of positive change, to send a message that we could build as well as destroy.
Instead, we're backed to chasing ghosts again, diverting all that money to fight in unecessary wars. And I don;t think any military action can effectively combat terrorism unless it is backed up with political action aimed at removing the reasons for terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
two things, if I may.
1. I never, ever claimed to support people like that. They can all go to hell right along with Bush. And no, criticsing one side does not equal supporting the other.
2. We've been over this before, but lets do so again.
Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+. If killing one man makes you a barbarian, killing 10,000 (and close to a million more with sanctions) makes you the High Emperor of the Infinite Kingdom of All Barbarians.
You really have issues that need to be sorted out. People die in war. Too bad. Innocents die in war. That's also too bad. Bush didn't kill these innocents Rictor. That's right, I didn't see Bush walk up to all these 10,000 people with a target pistol and put a bullet in their head. And Kim Sun Il? Just like Nick Berg, I don't think having a countryman (I'm South Korean) killed in that way is in any way justifiable. The indirect killing of innocents, while unfortunate, is.
-
He knows where its at... :D
This "war on terror" has not left us empty handed, of course. We have basically cut their funding in half and of course, arrested several people responsible for a lot of these attrocities.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's probably a fair point. But the military effect of Afghanistan has now been negated - i.e. Al-Queda is just as dangerous as it ever was, and possibly even more so. I think that war failed, because it wasn't backed up with the support needed to not only completely secure Afghanistan, but also to rebuild it into a moden nation-state.
When the Afghan war started, I was for it. Because it offered an opportunity - everything that was knocked down should have been rebuilt, 10 times better than it was before. i.e. it could have been used as an example of positive change, to send a message that we could build as well as destroy.
Instead, we're backed to chasing ghosts again, diverting all that money to fight in unecessary wars. And I don;t think any military action can effectively combat terrorism unless it is backed up with political action aimed at removing the reasons for terrorism.
I agree 100%. Bush knows how to fight a war but he's not got the faintest f**king clue what do do afterwards. Had we rebuilt Afghanistan it would have robbed Osama of a lot of his grass roots support and made people think that the US wasn't so bad. Instead we squandered the chance so Bush could settle his daddy's grudge with Saddam.
-
Not to mention the fact that this WMD claim was not ONLY made by Bush, but also by Clinton, and by Al Gore. You can look it up if you wish, they've said it. Why else do you think Clinton bombed targets in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Not to mention the fact that this WMD claim was not ONLY made by Bush, but also by Clinton, and by Al Gore. You can look it up if you wish, they've said it. Why else do you think Clinton bombed targets in Iraq?
2 wrongs don't make a right. It's that simple - this isn't an issue of politics / leader, but of the core policy. It's simply that Bushes pub fight* strategy of pre-emptive wars has had a devastating affect on world stability. i.e. there is a difference of scale between air strikes, and actually sending in US troops to an Arab country - and thus a difference of reaction.
And, of course, what makes it worse it that the weapons inspectors were actually back in the country, and there was an attempt to increae the numbers. Had the US allowed this - or at least given a respectable amount of time to the inspectors on the ground - rather than hinder it, then maybe it wouldn't have been apparent how much of a sham this excuse of WMD was.
*i.e. "are you looking at me? Then come and have a go!"
-
Clinton bombed targets in Iraq mainly to enforce the UN mandated no-fly zone.
Remember that Saddam quite probably still had WMDs at the start of Clinton's term. Although he undoubtably got rid of them before the end.
Besides even if Clinton said it he wasn't stupid enough to use it as the pretext for a land war in Iraq.
-
Also, the claim was made by Blair, and he's more or less admitted that he was suckered.
Possibly Bush isn't any worse than any other President, maybe people are just becoming more aware of the world we live in and the actions of those in power.
Even if this is true, does that mean we should just sit back, do nothing and accept it because 'that's the way it's always been'??
Bush is a failure, be it of his own making, or be it his government's making.
-
If you asked me, any homeland decisions made by Bush have surpassed Clinton in most ways. People love Clinton and worship the ground he walks on, namely Democrats.
Whenever ANYONE gets involved in forein policy, it usually means they have the world deciding as well, not just the country.
War is a big responsibility, and everything that happens in a war will always directly affect the guy who made it possible. But, if any of you have ever tried to run a war, then you have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Put yourself in that persons shoes, then you can judge. But non of you have been the president, none of you have run a war, hell, I bet none of you have ever had even an administrative political job, IE: working in direct with the prez or any major political figure of your country.
Half the people in this forum probably live in different country's, meaning that since you DONT live in America, then of course you arent going to hear the full story. You may take what is given to you, example, the internet, which while is a good news source still has biased turnings and flaws.
Yes, we could increase our numbers in Iraq. But the point is that a lot of people at home are already whinning about how we should withdraw some of our forces from Iraq, so I guess putting them in will make things worse. Who are you going to listen to first, people you only know in the board room, or the people of the country you are running? I know that everyone is your resposibility, but everyone also has a priority.
There is no right way to run a war. There is no "you should do this and that". There just IS no right way to go about doing it! So, do not think you all are "masters of armed combat" and think we SHOULD do this or SHOULD do that. Bigger numbers means bigger problems, which also means bigger numbers of body bags. You make a cluster of guys bigger so that more can be caught up in road-side bombs.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
War is a big responsibility, and everything that happens in a war will always directly affect the guy who made it possible. But, if any of you have ever tried to run a war, then you have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Put yourself in that persons shoes, then you can judge. But non of you have been the president, none of you have run a war, hell, I bet none of you have ever had even an administrative political job, IE: working in direct with the prez or any major political figure of your country.
So in other words we should pack up democracy and give it up as a bad idea cause none of us have ever tried to run a country? :p
I've never tried to fly the Space Shuttle but I know that pointing it straight at the ground is a bad idea. :D Bush's mistakes are so stupid that you don't have been president to see that he's wrong. Any fool can see he's wrong.
Besides we're arguing that Bush should have never started the war in the first place so your entire arguement is moot anyway.
-
Originally posted by Viper1000
You really have issues that need to be sorted out. People die in war. Too bad. Innocents die in war. That's also too bad. Bush didn't kill these innocents Rictor. That's right, I didn't see Bush walk up to all these 10,000 people with a target pistol and put a bullet in their head. And Kim Sun Il? Just like Nick Berg, I don't think having a countryman (I'm South Korean) killed in that way is in any way justifiable. The indirect killing of innocents, while unfortunate, is.
I'm sorry, but thats ridiculous beyond belief.
1. Do you think Hitler walked around with a Luger and killed 6 million Jews? What about Stalin, or Pol Pot (yeah, someone made the same point earlier)? Did they personally execute millions of people? Bush ordered the war, he's resposible for the dead. I don't see how you can even challenge that.
2.It makes not one bit of difference if someone died intentionally, for example by way of beheading, or as an "unavoidable casualty of war". Dead is dead, bullet or bomb or gas or sword. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that those who died during the bombing and occupation are worth less because their deaths were...what, unavoidable? Sorry buddy, it is a well known fact that civilians die in a war. If you don't want to kill civilians, don't start a war. And even so, there is MUCH that could have been done to minimize civilian deaths. The simple fact is, no one cared how many ragheads died.
Muhamed Reza, and Iraqi shopkeeper (just making this up) and father of three is worth neither more nor less than Kim Sun Il or Nick Berg. 10,000+ Muhamed Reza's are dead, but only a handful of of Kim Sun Ils.
What I suspect is that at the root of this sentiment is just good old fashioned rascism. I mean, yes, all people are equal and all that lovely stuff, but most people still harbour in themselves, deep down somewhere, the belief that people who are different are worth less. You say you're South Korean, right? So, do you think you would dismiss the casualties of the war, occupation and sanctions as easily as you do if they were South Korean? What if you lived in Iraq, would you say "a few Iraqi here and there, it was unavoidable"?
aldo and kara: I probably should mention, I don't know if its common knowledge or not, that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the US could show them proof of his guilt. They said "**** off" and well, the rest is history. I'm wondering whether the reason most people (well, most Westerners anyway) supported the invasion of Afghanistan is becuase 9/11 was still fresh in their minds. As you know, because probably you were part of it, there was an enormous outpouring of support and sympathy for the US after 9/11. And consequently, that gave the Bush administration a carte blanche more or less, to act as they would for a period of time. I'm wondering, if 9/11 never happened, or if the invasion of Afhganistan happened several years after the event, would people have been so quick to support it?
-
Nobody is getting the full story Tin Can, not you, not us, not anyone.
You are right that there is no 'right way' to run a war, but there are 'standards' to judge these things by, Human Rights, Losses to friendly troops etc, (this is from a political, not a humanitarian point of view). And Bush really hasn't made those targets, nor has he reacted strongly enough when he has made a mistake. When the Abu Ghraib situation was uncovered, we didn't see the blood and fire 'Human Rights' Bush emerge. If we had, I may be thinking differently of him, but all he did was mumble about it 'Not being what America is about' or suchlike.The rest has plodded through the legal system much the same as for a soldier found drunk on duty.
The fact of the matter the Mr Bush started the war, it was his (and Blairs) rhetoric that bought this all to a head. If he starts the war, he damn well better be taking responsibility for it.
In a small way, I agree with America's view, it seems to me that these days we see evil things being done and stand there and wring our hands and say 'Ohhh this is terrible, we must debate this'. America got up off it's arse, for better or for worse, and acted against what they percieved as evil (and gassing people IS evil, whether done by Iraqis or Americans or any other country). For the information that was given, it seemed the right thing to do.
The same thing needs to happen again, you can't just sit and wring your hands and say 'Well, he keeps making mistakes, but he's old and this is a tought war he started, we really should take this into account'. He's the leader of your country, if he's not doing a good job, get another one that will do a better job, leaders are nothing special, most teams have them, and when they longer perform, they are replaced. That is humanity.
There are 2 sides to this crisis, the American and the Iraqi side of things, it's not just about how many soldiers should we send, I wonder how much information you actually recieve on the impact of this war on the Iraqi people, or, indeed, the entire Middle East?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
If you asked me, any homeland decisions made by Bush have surpassed Clinton in most ways. People love Clinton and worship the ground he walks on, namely Democrats.
Whenever ANYONE gets involved in forein policy, it usually means they have the world deciding as well, not just the country.
War is a big responsibility, and everything that happens in a war will always directly affect the guy who made it possible. But, if any of you have ever tried to run a war, then you have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Put yourself in that persons shoes, then you can judge. But non of you have been the president, none of you have run a war, hell, I bet none of you have ever had even an administrative political job, IE: working in direct with the prez or any major political figure of your country.
Half the people in this forum probably live in different country's, meaning that since you DONT live in America, then of course you arent going to hear the full story. You may take what is given to you, example, the internet, which while is a good news source still has biased turnings and flaws.
Yes, we could increase our numbers in Iraq. But the point is that a lot of people at home are already whinning about how we should withdraw some of our forces from Iraq, so I guess putting them in will make things worse. Who are you going to listen to first, people you only know in the board room, or the people of the country you are running? I know that everyone is your resposibility, but everyone also has a priority.
There is no right way to run a war. There is no "you should do this and that". There just IS no right way to go about doing it! So, do not think you all are "masters of armed combat" and think we SHOULD do this or SHOULD do that. Bigger numbers means bigger problems, which also means bigger numbers of body bags. You make a cluster of guys bigger so that more can be caught up in road-side bombs.
So you want me to pity Bush becuase running a war is a big responsibility? First of all, if Bush was in any way involved in the war effort, the US would have attacked Nepal, been decimated by some sheep-herders, proceeded to make a tactical withdrawl to Latvia and then regrouped for a counterattack against Jamaica. All the while, US warplanes would be striking Tokyo and US bombers would be dropping bombs on their own troops.
With a multi-trillion dollar military, the best equipped soldiers in the world, some of the best training and a small army of generals, you're telling me Bush was under stress? What, did he not get his Garfield cartoon in the Sunday paper? Face it, he is nto in charge. His advisors tell him what to do, and he does it. He doesn't even read the newspapers. What I would expect from a President is someone intimately familiar with political relations, economics, social issues, an encylopedic knowledge of history, philosophy and literature. No to mention military history and modern warfare. That man would be fit to make decisions, and therefor he would be under stress. but Bush isn't making any decisions regarding the war, at least not specifics. He said "go to war" and everything after that was handled by subordinates. That still doesn't excuse him from the responnsibility, because it was his initiative, but he was not involved in any of the specifics.
****, that was too long, I had intended it to be like four sentences. Anyway, the point I was tryng to make, before I went off on a tangent, is this:
Wars don't just happen. It takes a conscious effort to start one. And let me just mention it one more time, for the hell of it. WAR IS NOT A GOOD ****ING THING! We should not respect those who go to war, except to defend themselves, and even then, they are murders.
It takes far more courage, wit and moral strenght to make peace. Any dumb**** can pull a trigger or order an airstrike, to solve his problems by force. We should respect those who are men of peace, not those who bomb their problems and enemies out of existance.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
-Isaac Isimov-
By that standard, Bush is not only a murder, he is totally inept as a human being. He deserves no respect.
-
Look, Ric, no matter how hard you try to deny it, you do fully back the actions of those in the 9/11 attacks, these nitwits beheading people for Al-Jazeera TV, etc. You've stated over and over again that their actions are absolutely justified in light of America's crappy foreign policy decisions over the last 50 years or so. Oh sure, you might use the words 'unjustified', but it doesn't take long to read between the lines to get the true message. That bothers me.
If it were only that simple....You hate America for being rich, succesful, and free. The same freedoms you are enjoying now that allow you to talk smack about it. Anyone who has amassed wealth and can use it for influence is bad. Grudgingly, I can respect that.
See, the 'deaths of innocents' only matter to you if they happen to be Arabic, as someone else might only care for the 'deaths of innocents' if they happen to be American. When asked about Kim Sun-Il, you went off about 10,000+ Iraqis. Not one decent acknowledgement. Did you go watch the video? Probably not. You really, really should.
Yes, yes, you'll try to say otherwise and then promptly negate your position. I read what you wrote last night, very intently. Racist? Perhaps, but that's an awfully strong way to put it.
So fess up already and get it over with. Stop hiding behind liberal idealism, you're not.
I'd be interested in your position on Timothy McVeigh. He felt as you do.
collateral damage, indeed.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
aldo and kara: I probably should mention, I don't know if its common knowledge or not, that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the US could show them proof of his guilt. They said "**** off" and well, the rest is history.
Get your facts straight. They never offered to hand him over to the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,563965,00.html
They offered to try him or see him get an islamic trial. Had they actually arrested him and been holding him at the time they might have had the right to continue argueing that there was a diplomatic solution but while he was free to move around at will they had no real arguement.
Even if he wasn't guilty of the 9/11 attacks they knew he was guilty of the previous attack and the one on the USS Cole.
-
If you think you can speak for me better than I can myself, by all means, continue. However, I have said and I will continue tosay, whats more I will continue to believe, that killing innocents is wrong, no matter who is being killed and who is doing the killing. And until such a time as you can prove that I am clinically insane, my thoughts regarding my opinions will continue to have greater authority than your thoughts on my opinions.
One of us may or may not, depending on who you ask, support the beheading of civilians by rebels who are fighting to expel an occupying force from their nation. And one of us openly supports a nation who's foreign policy has killed over 15,000 innocents in the past 3 years, over a million in the past decade, and several million in the past several decades. Even if you're right, and I do support the people who beheaded Kim Sun Il, the people I may or may not support are still amateurs compared to the people you admit to supporting. Even in your worst case scenario, I'm still better off than you, no?
Now, regarding my freedoms. No government, American, Canadian, Serbian or the UN, can grant me that which I already possess. You see, no one has given me my freedoms, I have them when I am born. I have absolute freedom, and therefor absolute responsibility. However, I, and most human, have agreed upon a social contract. I give up some of my freedoms, for example the freedom to murder, steal and so forth, in order to get rid of some of my responsibilities, such as the responsibility to protect myself from bodily harm, to guard my property, to exact punishment for certain wrongs. The state takes on these responsibilties, in exchange for which I give up some of my freedoms. The less freedom I have, the less responsibility. Free speaeh is one of the freedoms which I am born with, but have not given up to the state. Certain others, like owning property, the right to elect a government, the right to worship and so on, are not commonly among those freedoms which a person consents to give up.
See, the 'deaths of innocents' only matter to you if they happen to be Arabic, as someone else might only care for the 'deaths of innocents' if they happen to be American.
Don't presume to know what I think, just because you think it. To me, all human life outside of my immediate family and friends, is equally valuable. The fact that you don't think so is not my problem.
That, as I mentioned, is rascism. So, lets define the word shall we? I define it as holding the view that any race, nationality, gender or religion is superior to any other, and that its members are worth less. So, the fact that you care more about a dead GI than you do about a dead Iraqi child, thats rascism. Sure, its called nationalism, but its a different side of the same dice. This is perfectly fine, so long as does not negatively inlfuence anyone else. But when it used to justfy a war that has killed tens of thousands, in not benign anymore.
What you also have to keep in mind, is that your opinion is only yours. You can not expect affairs between huge groups of people, lets call them nations, to be governed by your opinion. The fact that you think America can do this and that, means dick. There is international law, to which your nation has agreed, thats governs interactions between nations.
I think that what you just can come to terms with is that I refuse to make a double standard. Believeing that Iraqis killing innocents is wrong, but America doing the same is A OK, thats hypocricy. Saddam invaded Kuwait, and got smakced down. America invaded Iraq, and what do they get as punishment? Nothin'. Your thoughts on international policy as very subjective, and therefor can apply to no one but yourself. When America accepts that it must be held to the same standard in regard to international affairs as any other nation, thats the time when it will never wage another wage again.
As for the "you hate American wealth and freedom" bull****, I won't even comment, its so stupid.
-
The war in Iraq was, militarily at least, a success. Although even in that respect it's worth noting that a great deal of that was luck - both that the Iraqi army didn;t fight as hard as would have been expected, and also in that the US central command rejected Rumsfelds suicidal plans to use a tiny force and rely on local support / rebellion. And it's also worth pointing out that, during wargames simulations, the US 'army' was decimated by non-conventional tactics such as suicide attacks on ships.
It's the peace where Bush & co have so spectacularly failed, and - unfortunately for all of us - it is the peace that is of singular importance in combating the causes of terrorism.
-
kara: I read differently from a different source, I'll try to find it.
aldo: I always found it strange that people change their opinion on the legitimacy of an action depending on whether it succseeds or fails. Of you believe the war was wrong, whether it went well or not is irrelevant. Similarly, if you believe that it was justified, you believe so regardless of the outcome. I fall in to the former group. Even if everything went splendinly, and Iraqis were living in peace and happiness, I would still feel that the war was unjustified. I woulnd't feel quite so bad about the situtation, but my thoughts on the legitimacy of the war would still be exactly the same.
-
Peace in Iraq is going to take a long time, you know. It's a long-term commitment and Bush saw that when he started it. That is why he said he would keep it up and not back out if he was president again. If someone is commited to finishing the job they started then I think they have balls.
The people who said that "Hitler didnt personally kill Jews." You are just a friggin idiot. Comparing accidents in mis-guided bombings, or civilians getting in the way, is not the same thing. Hitler hated the Jews and so he PURPOUSFULLY commited Genocide. 10,000 civilians dying in the line-of-fire is NOT ANYTHING close to full murder. Hitler had an intent to kill. He KNEW that all those people who would be extinguished and he liked it. 10,000 civilians dying in the line of fire does NOT match up to that scenario.
And at the moment, we have only lost a fraction of our forces in Iraq. Even if half of them were taken out tomorrow, we would send it another half to make up for it. We dont over-excess our troops, we just keep them up to standards.
Just because our military is the strongest in the world DOESNT mean you wont be nervous when sending them off to battle. A marine could only take a maximum of a few machine gun rounds. A gun is worthless in the hands of a dead man. Everyone is still human. One easy gunshot to the right spot will bring him down just as easily as if it was a terrorist.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
aldo: I always found it strange that people change their opinion on the legitimacy of an action depending on whether it succseeds or fails. Of you believe the war was wrong, whether it went well or not is irrelevant. Similarly, if you believe that it was justified, you believe so regardless of the outcome. I fall in to the former group. Even if everything went splendinly, and Iraqis were living in peace and happiness, I would still feel that the war was unjustified. I woulnd't feel quite so bad about the situtation, but my thoughts on the legitimacy of the war would still be exactly the same.
Not necesarrily.... because the converse is true, for one thing. In the 1930s, 90% (+) believed appeasement was the best course of action, yet 10 years later it was viewed as foolish.
If the war in Iraq had led to a stable, democratic and prosperous nation - a 'beacon' to the middle east - I would have been prepared to accept it (because Saddams human rights abuse was a key factor in the justification of it, at least over here). Because my issue with the Iraq war was always that "fighting the peace" would only lead to trouble. And it has.
NB: US troops are dangerously overstretched, thanks to commitment in Iraq, South Korea, Phillipines, etc. That's why National Guard reservists are being sent ot Iraq, etc.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If the war in Iraq had led to a stable, democratic and prosperous nation - a 'beacon' to the middle east - I would have been prepared to accept it (because Saddams human rights abuse was a key factor in the justification of it, at least over here). Because my issue with the Iraq war was always that "fighting the peace" would only lead to trouble. And it has.
:yes: Agree with you there again Aldo.
The simple fact is that I had no problem with the invasion of Iraq and the removal of of Saddam as ruler. Neither did I have a problem with the Americans and their followers setting up a government of their choosing to rule in the interim.
My problems were with the ability of Bush and Blair to do that without f**king it up. And I've been proved correct. They couldn't do it. they went in kicked out Saddam and then it was like they turned to each other and said "What now?"
No one seemed to have any idea what to do once Saddam was toppled. As a result the peace was dreadfully mismanaged and resulted in the mess we have now.
Here's a question for you Rictor. Had the invasion of Iraq resulted in a stable democratic Iraq rather than the current mess would you have agreed that it was worth doing?
-
You see, I will say this for America on the WMD front, at least they aren't leaping up and blowing raspberry whenever they find some, maybe because they did that a few times during the war and looked a bit silly afterwards ;)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040702/wl_nm/iraq_poland_weapons_dc
Certainly not enough to warrant warfare, and the 2 sides can't even agree on how many shells contained them, but at least America were honest enough to say they weren't much of a threat, so 1 point to them there :)
Not exactly a smoking gun though ;)
-
See this is why al-Queda is winning, as are the right-wing nuts in our own countries who detest freedom for the masses.
We're all busy fighting each other over our opinion of Bush or his policies, rather than opening our eyes and seeing it's deeper than one man.
-
It's swings and roundabouts, we spend years doing exactly the same to the various groups in the Middle East ;)
Edit : Besides, if we couldn't debate and express our doubts, concerns or even mistrusts of leaders, then we would probably be oppressed and need UN help ;)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Here's a question for you Rictor. Had the invasion of Iraq resulted in a stable democratic Iraq rather than the current mess would you have agreed that it was worth doing?
I'm sort of torn here, and I will be the first to admit that I don't have a 100% opinion either way.
One one hand, Saddam was trult a tyrant. The Iraqi people are better off with him, no doubt, and also they wnated him gone, again no doubt. Now, assuming that, as you said, it had all worked out great and Iraq was stable and free (not what is now being called sovereignty), then I would feel much better about thw whole thing,
But...
If you open the door for invasion and regime change, even if only to remove a tyrant, that door is open nevertheless and its staying that way. If you allow one country to invade another country and change its governement, for whatever reason, you bring into question the whole concept of sovereignty.
The first time, its to remove a tyrant. The second time, its to remove an unfriendly governement, even though they've broken to laws. The third time, you can't even produce a reason, beside "their governemtn didn't do as they were told".
The fact is, and I think you will all agree, that the US government, whether its this one or the next, can't be trusted to not abuse the concept of humanitarian intervention. Because of that, I would rather have no intervention at all, than to legitimize regime change for whatever reason.
Its very dangerous if people start thinking that thats the natural way of things, the US doing whatever they want, overthrowing governments left and right to further its intersts. People need to know that its wrong. With that in mind, I'm sort of leaning towards the "no foreign intervention at all, let them work it out themselves" crowd.
But, as I said, I'm far from decided on the matter.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Peace in Iraq is going to take a long time, you know. It's a long-term commitment and Bush saw that when he started it. That is why he said he would keep it up and not back out if he was president again. If someone is commited to finishing the job they started then I think they have balls.
The people who said that "Hitler didnt personally kill Jews." You are just a friggin idiot. Comparing accidents in mis-guided bombings, or civilians getting in the way, is not the same thing. Hitler hated the Jews and so he PURPOUSFULLY commited Genocide. 10,000 civilians dying in the line-of-fire is NOT ANYTHING close to full murder. Hitler had an intent to kill. He KNEW that all those people who would be extinguished and he liked it. 10,000 civilians dying in the line of fire does NOT match up to that scenario.
And at the moment, we have only lost a fraction of our forces in Iraq. Even if half of them were taken out tomorrow, we would send it another half to make up for it. We dont over-excess our troops, we just keep them up to standards.
Just because our military is the strongest in the world DOESNT mean you wont be nervous when sending them off to battle. A marine could only take a maximum of a few machine gun rounds. A gun is worthless in the hands of a dead man. Everyone is still human. One easy gunshot to the right spot will bring him down just as easily as if it was a terrorist.
So, your basic premise is that people who die accidentally are worth less than thos killed on purpose. Thats just stupid. Again, we have the double standard. Whatever your side does in less bad than what the other guys do.
Also, as I said, nopt much effort was put into protecting civilians. Bomb a school becuase there is a 10% chance that soldiers are in it. Fire of a few extra missles into that residential area, just to make sure you got them all. Its trigger happy 20 year old, what do you expect?
And I don't doubt that a number of soldiers, hell, just pop off a few rounds into a crowd, no one will hold them accountable. They came to kill some ragheads, and doing repairs on Humvees all day long, they're itching for some action. So, when those protestors get a little angry, take a few down, after all thats what they came there for. No one will know, or more specifically no one will care.
So what if those people approaching the checkpoint are civilians, we can just as easily say that they didn't stop and we had to take them down to protect ourselves. Those mother****ers crashed two planes into the World Trade Centers, and you want us to take it easy on them?
-
Rictor, your comparison of a genocide and military line-of-fire deaths are clearly amature and idiotic.
This runs up at about the same scenario as a cop accidently shooting his partner when he ran out in front of him, and comparing that death to a criminal capping a civilian right in front of him. Again, lets look at this:
Accident... Intentional Murder... neither life was more worthless than the other, but the reason for which they were killed are complete different. Bush doesnt want the people hes trying to liberate dead. Hitler wanted the Jews dead. Neither death was more important or less than each other, but the reason they died cannot be compared. This goes to show weak thinking on your part. I expected more of an argument out of you. :sigh:
Another thing: Unless you ARE one of those people, then you have no idea if they have a thirst for blood. Have you been up to every soldier, watched him just randomly fire at civilians? I get the feeling you might have seen this happen once or twice, but generalizing an entire military and saying all of them just need to go out and kill something is a worthless argument not even worth discussing.
-
Iraq was a Sovereign Nation under U.N. Rule not U.S. and bound by International Laws, not U.S. laws, meaning U.S. doesnt make the choices unilaterally.
the U.S. did choose unilaterally to attack iraq, how different is that then iraq unilaterally attacking Kuwait? It isnt different at all, not one bit!
So U.S. is as bad as Saddam was, the only difference is the U.S. has the military power to go through with its threats and Iraq obviously didnt.
Who is worse? The U.S. is worse cause they invade soveriegn nations who dont have any real weapons that are worth worrying over. It turns out this war for iraq was a war for oil, and again its the U.S. that instagated it. Therefore U.S. is the AXIS OF EVIL IMO.
Its so in your face obvious. U.S. reminds me of what the Germans did in WW2 days. U.S. is pulling the same ****, and getting away with it, before we know it all Arabs will be wearing a yellow star on their sleaves.......(sound familiar)
We are doomed to repeat our history again, and thanks to the U.S. we are making the same mistake made 60 years ago, heck the Patriot act is active isnt it? Stupid peoples and their stupid governments. Its my wish one day people will actually question their governments for a change and look for truth rather then defend a bunch of idealist you dont know.
-
I think it's time for you to take your medicine sony! :D
-
The sad fact is that, in a way, he is right.
When a government is elected, it is immediately elevated to a level of non-accountability, they suddenly have the right to keep information from the very people that not only elected them, but often paid for them to do whatever they are hiding.
It's our money that pays for everything a Government does, our labour, our sweat, and for that, we get told what we want. If Bush had given the option of spending hundreds of millions on Eductaion on Hundreds of millions of 'freeing' people in a country you had hardly ever heard of, I think I know what the American public would choose, and quite rightly too!
But no, Governments would rather lie and manipulate than guide and inform, it gets things done faster, and although individuals cannot seem to be blamed for their actions, when that individual loses popularity, the party suddenly seems to think it's ok to do so and claim 'the rest of us aren't like that!'.
We need to open our eyes, seriously, and realise that the divide between 'Leaders and Peasants' is returning and escalating, Britain is practically a two-class nation now :( And the Leaders seems to think the only reason for Peasants to exist is to service them.
-
He is right, but real patroitism... ish... is having the balls to say your country is wrong. Which, sadly enough... is. :(
-
The worst thing is, that governments win elections not on the strength of their record, but by criticising the opposition - and vice versa. It's become a slagging match, where neither side is willing to form a policy thta the other would support, regardless of how beneficial. There more interested in knocking the other side than actually seeking a solution.
-
Remember back when getting elected was to see what you could do for the people, and not just a competition?
-
I'd dearly love to see those days return myself TC but the wound is getting deeper, not healing :(
Remember, to be American is to believe in America NOT neccessarily it's government. Governments are not their countries, they should represent the wishes of it's constituents, the words Public Servant have a meaning. :) Patriotism does not need to be faith in what your country is, but faith in what it can become. America, more than any nation in the world before it, has the power to create what mankind has dreamed of, and I can think of many countries that I would be far more uncomfortable with wielding that much power, my own included.
When the constitution was laid out, there were several 'safety valves' put in by some very wise forefathers of yours, those valves must be used, before the current establishment removes them all. Your country is being run by people who don't even believe in their own peoples' freedom at the moment, how can they make statements on anyone elses?
-
Remember back when getting elected was to see what you could do for the people, and not just a competition?
Was it ever really like that?
-
About 50-60 years ago, yes. In the UK many people from lowly station rose to prominence in the Labour Party, and Britain prospered for the diversity of opinion. Back in the 15th Century it was pretty much as it is now, with 2 classes, constant religious and conquest wars etc draining money from the working class etc. Says a lot if you think about it ;)
Edit : I'm not saying some of those politicians weren't as corrupt as hell, but then, there were other politicians who had no qualms about saying so, and providing evidence. It's not perfect, because people see the government as something to help them avoid responsibility, but it was better than many other options.
-
Maybe you guys should go into American politics and become the prez.
-
LOL Tempting ;) But it's not just the person, it's not just even the cabinet, it's the whole establishment, it all needs rebuilding and reprioritising. It needs a way for people to force the Government to take actions other than the threat of non re-election, because the people who actually make those policies never leave the office regardless of who is president.
I'm not talking Men in Black here, I'm talking about the lawmakers, the industrialists, the religions, the generals and the diplomats. They are the wheels that America travels on.
Basically, great principle, great idea, but it's too easy to get comfy in power ;)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Maybe you guys should go into American politics and become the prez.
Can't. You have to be American born to become president.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Can't. You have to be American born to become president.
Not to mention needing a spare $50m to campaign......
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=6&u=/latimests/20040703/ts_latimes/armystagemanagedfallofhusseinstatue
Y'see, it's this sort of thing that annoys people, because it always comes to light in the end :)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040703/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_guerrilla_amnesty_4
This may raise a few eyebrows too.
-
Article 1 is old, old news. Article 2 is kind of interesting, though I'm a skeptic.
There is a possibility that the rules for eligibility to become the President of the US may change in the future. I think that the rules for become governor were changed to accomodate Arnie, though I'm not 100% sure on that. If he gets ambitious, I don't see why he, or someone else, couldn't pull it off.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Not to mention needing a spare $50m to campaign......
Try 200+. I think I remember a statistic from somewhere that indicates that the candidate with the biggest war chest always wins.
-
I'm staying dead centre-keel with my opinion on number 2. On one hand, I am inclined to agree that the only way to start to end this mess is for this to happen, on the other hand, these people have also killed Iraqi civilians in their attempts to kill Americans, shouldn't Iraqi law be doing something to find them justice as well? I foresee other, much bigger problems with this later as well, but, like you, I am skeptical as to whether it will happen.
Edit : Hey, Item 1 vanished from Yahoo after about 20 minutes ;) Everyone whistle the X-Files theme! ;)