[Turnsky]

{removed at request of J.F.K}

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Turnsky
heres a picture of him i personally think he has a pair a caterpillars glued to his forehead...

Stop that, people will never be able to take him even remotely serious if they've seen his face before!

[Turnsky]

bah, you're no fun

[J.F.K.]

Sorry

It's true, though, those silkworms have taken permanent residence on his face. We can post him later and let everyone laugh then.

[Turnsky]

[Splinter]

hell man i want to laugh now ill just search him out in the good old google image search

[Splinter]

after having searched google images high and low i have not seen any where he has worms on his face. what were you guys smoking? :thepimp:

[Mr Carrot]

the yanks spend 4 times as much on the individual soldier so they are bound to have better kit. Ignoring the rifle **** up theres no other army in the world that could deploy on the scale the UK has (barring the US of course).

[Rictor]

2- The UN cried genocide, even though there was no such thing happening.

The removal of 1/3rd of the Kosova Albanian population, the forced repatriation, mass murder, the suspension of individual liberties? (above)

First of all, do you doubt that equal amounts of Serbs were killed/displaced? By the end of the Iraqi war, I would venture to guess that well opver 200,000 people will be killed (thats being very conservative). In Vietnam, America killed about 3 million people. Now I agree that what happened in Kosovo was extremley wrong (from both sides), but what I am also saying is that other countries have done much worse, without anyone *****in to them.

They just like to throw around that word becuase it sounds cool (it really is that simple/stupid), like weapons of mass distruction. The Albanians were killing the Serbs (military and civilian) and the Serbs were killing the Albanians(military and civilian). Thats what you would call a "war". Yes, civilians were being driven out, on both sides, but both sides were equally guilty of doing it. CNN never mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Serbs that were displaced and fled their homes. (the bombing actually cause more people to flee (on both sides) then the Serb-Albanian conflict)


So, by that justification the uK could have invaded Eire, killed several towns and expelled most of the population because there were republican terror groups based there?

Or Spain could exterminate Catalunya or the Basque region because of ETA?

And that's assuming you count the KLA as a terrorist group and not a seperatist guerilla group - 'freedom fighters' as such. Certainly, the suspension of Kosovan rights by Milosevic during the period of a united Yugolavia could lend credence to that...

Eire, I'm assuming thats somewhere in Ireland? You make it sounds as if the Albanians never fought back. They did just as much harm as the Serbs, killed just as many people, burned just as many villages. I dont think its right to accuse only one side in a war. Both parties did the killing, Serbs and Albanians, however the Albanian killing never really got reported. They both did bad thinigs, but thats war. I think you'de agree that no sane country will let a significant portion of its territory seperate at the drop of a hat. Thats why the Brits have been putting up a fight for the past 20 years (or however long), they're not just going to let Ireland go. The population of Kosovo was not like 98% Albanian, its was more or less balanced between the 2 nationalities. Again, killing was done on both sides, so yes: the Serbs are guilty, but no less than the ALbanians.

3- The bombing only entrenched Milosevic's postion in politics. When a country is under attack, the entire population tends to unite, which includes the President, regardless of his past crimes. The serbian deemed the US a bigger threat, and united as a country, inlcuding Milosevic, regardless of his past crimes. In a bombing attack, the President is the LAST person who will die. He lives in a bunker with food an water and electricity, while the population suffers. Thats like knocking over an anthill to kill the queen. The bombing attack did the exact opposite of what the US hoped, and it didnt even destroy Serbian military (of this is I am very proud, our military showed an amazing amount of creativity and resourcefullness in fooling the US).

You're not aware of the conscript desertion in Kosovo and the civil unrest in their home towns, then? I'll see if I can find some details, but what I do remeber is that a large group of consrcipted soldiers went AWOl and started to returnh home with a large amount of weapons... around the same time, there were also large protests in several towns , etc, over the conscription...

NB: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347997.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/347467.stm


First of all, do you honestly believe that BBC (though I must admit, they're better than CNN) is going to report the proceedings fairly?


4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.

There is no military adavantage in killing civillians nowadays.... there's just no benefit when you're trying to alienate a dictator from his population.

However, NATO planes were ordered to fly high-altitude, less accurate, bombing runs to avoid casualties, which reduced their effectivness. A low level bombing campaign would almost certainly have inflicted much heavier losses on the yugoslav army.

Its not like they're dropiing tennies balls out of a plane, these are satelitte guided bombs, and the satelitte doesnt care how high you drop them, its still accurate. Even if its was all accidents (I'm not saying it was, but for the sake of conversation), does that make it less horrific. The US was willing to sacrifice of civilian lives to perhaps lower the chance of a plane getting shot down. Civilains should be protected above all else, since they are guiltless. Every time a soldier goes into the field, he knows the risks. However, civilians getting bombs dropped on them are neither deserving of the fate, nor can do anything to prevent it. BTW as I've said, why did the "terrorist" crash into the WTC. Statistically speaking about 5k people died in the WTC. About that number died in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Just as the WTC victims were innocent, so were the Serbian victims innocents. I dare you to stand here and tell me a) the yugoslavian civilians were somehow more deserving of death or b)a yugoslavian life is worth less than an american life.

I dont know about you, but somehow I dont see how 5 year of children running to a fall out shelter at 3am with AA fire and bombs exploding around them is helping anyone, though I may just be obtuse.

Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.

I'm sure if the government decides to exterminate a small ethnic group, say the Welsh, i'll understand the Kosova-era Yugolav point of view.

No, when the US realizes that their actions will go unopposed by the world, then you'll understand. When anyone who is againt the US starts getting an economic and military smackdown, then you'll understand. [/coolor]

[vyper]

[q]Originally posted by Rictor


Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.  [/q]

Personally, I think he'd care more (as would I) if Glasgow started getting bombed.

[q]

I'm sure if the government decides to exterminate a small ethnic group, say the Welsh, i'll understand the Kosova-era Yugolav point of view.[/q]
 Oh someone please think of the sheep!

[Q]No, when the US realizes that their actions will go unopposed by the world, then you'll understand. When anyone who is againt the US starts getting an economic and military smackdown, then you'll understand. [/Q]

And just how are we going to stop them anyway?

[Warlock]

God let's not get back into this "The US is going to take over the world!" **** again

[Stryke 9]

Here's hoping this pisses someone off. Kinda interesting, actually.

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such Weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up!

[Razor]

Originally posted by Rictor

"That oughta teach 'em Serbs whos boss around here"

Covece bre nemoj da me zabrinjavas. Pa jer nisi ti Srbin? Kazes da si iz Beograda.

[Razor]

Originally posted by Rictor
yes milosevic

you see , I ( a yugoslav, who lived in yugoslaia for 9 years)consider Milosevic a dictartor and a bastard, however the 1999 bombing of Yugoslvia was a)unjust b)illegal c)pointless

What you need to realize is that an attack on a whole country is NOT the way to get rid of a single person. In all the bombing (in both Yugo and Iraq) the president is the last person who will get injured, the people are the ones who suffer most.

1- Without wanting to sound biased, Kosovo was Serbian land. The Albanian population of Kosovo wanted to seperate and join Albania. This is like Texas wanting to break from the US and join Mexico. The fact is that (without wanting to sound prejucided) the Albanian were doing nothing and wanted everything. I have a first hand report from people who have lived in Kosovo for about 35 years, and for the most part the Albanian population had not been pulling its weight for about 40 years. Now this may sound like "he is decriminating against ALL Albanians" but I'm not going to disregard fact just to be "politically correct". No, I do not think all Albanians were like this, but a significant portion. For 50 years the Albanian population in Kosovo has been getting money and of other privileges from the government (better treatment thatn other) and were not giving back anything in return The n they wanted to seperate..this sounds like unthankfullness to me.

2- The UN cried genocide, even though there was no such thing happening. They just like to throw around that word becuase it sounds cool (it really is that simple/stupid), like weapons of mass distruction. The Albanians were killing the Serbs (military and civilian) and the Serbs were killing the Albanians(military and civilian). Thats what you would call a "war". Yes, civilians were being driven out, on both sides, but both sides were equally guilty of doing it. CNN never mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Serbs that were displaced and fled their homes. (the bombing actually cause more people to flee (on both sides) then the Serb-Albanian conflict)

3- The bombing only entrenched Milosevic's postion in politics. When a country is under attack, the entire population tends to unite, which includes the President, regardless of his past crimes. The serbian deemed the US a bigger threat, and united as a country, inlcuding Milosevic, regardless of his past crimes. In a bombing attack, the President is the LAST person who will die. He lives in a bunker with food an water and electricity, while the population suffers. Thats like knocking over an anthill to kill the queen. The bombing attack did the exact opposite of what the US hoped, and it didnt even destroy Serbian military (of this is I am very proud, our military showed an amazing amount of creativity and resourcefullness in fooling the US).

4- Civlian targets WERE hit on purpouse. I dont know the final number but about 4000 civilians died in the bombing. THe US's excuse was "our maps are out of date, so that marketplace is where we thought a military bunker was". This is the lamest excuse eve, both since the US has satellite guided missles, which dont rely on maps, and since the "smart bombs" are supposed to be the most advanced piece of military hardware on earth.



I dont know about you, but somehow I dont see how 5 year of children running to a fall out shelter at 3am with AA fire and bombs exploding around them is helping anyone, though I may just be obtuse.

Aldo, I dont expect you to believe this until it turns around and bites you in the ass..you'll realize sooner or later, perhaps when London (uhm, I just assume all British people live in London hehe) is being bombed, you'll get it.

Rictore, ja sam im sve ovo pricao stotine i stotine puta i ne vredi. Sve sto si rekao je cista istina ali oni samo slusaju svoju propagandu i ono sto im njihove medije govore o nama, tj da smo ubice, da smo zlocinci ( a da su albanci "nevini" i fini), a to da Kosovo zaista pripada nama ( i koliko nam ono znaci sa kulturnog i bilo kog drugog aspekta) i koliko je Srpski narod unisten i koliko smo mi patili kroz sve ove godine, decenije i vekove, od Albanaca, Turaka, fasista, natovaca i drugih, to nijh uopste ne zanima. Zato ih pusti. Vidis da su budale kada nece da saslusaju i nasu stranu price nego samo njihovu. Usput nemoj na ovo da odgovoris na engleskom.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Sandwich
"Hemmet"? It that what they're called? I think I saw a few of those back in 98-99 - lemme attach a pic. We called them the "Osh-Kosh" trucks. Don't know why - I don't think Osh-Kosh (B'gosh) has invaded Israel...

Oshkosh trucks or some such

http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/

No relation AFAIK to the children's clothing company.  Oshkosh is a city.

http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/

[Mr. Vega]

Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly, which is why I am presenting them right now and not in the future.

Ok...In your view, what is the point of having power?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


First of all, do you doubt that equal amounts of Serbs were killed/displaced? By the end of the Iraqi war, I would venture to guess that well opver 200,000 people will be killed (thats being very conservative). In Vietnam, America killed about 3 million people. Now I agree that what happened in Kosovo was extremley wrong (from both sides), but what I am also saying is that other countries have done much worse, without anyone *****in to them.

WEll, forget the other cases, forget the provocations for either site.

With the event that the Yugoslav army had been ordered to 'remove' the Kosovan Albanian populaiton, can you suggest another way (other than the NATO military intervention), that would have stopped the massacre?

Bear in mind that the consequences of not acting are very clear - a massive crime against humanity at the least, genocide at the worst.

Eire, I'm assuming thats somewhere in Ireland? You make it sounds as if the Albanians never fought back. They did just as much harm as the Serbs, killed just as many people, burned just as many villages. I dont think its right to accuse only one side in a war. Both parties did the killing, Serbs and Albanians, however the Albanian killing never really got reported. They both did bad thinigs, but thats war. I think you'de agree that no sane country will let a significant portion of its territory seperate at the drop of a hat. Thats why the Brits have been putting up a fight for the past 20 years (or however long), they're not just going to let Ireland go. The population of Kosovo was not like 98% Albanian, its was more or less balanced between the 2 nationalities. Again, killing was done on both sides, so yes: the Serbs are guilty, but no less than the ALbanians.

Eire is Ireland, or specifically the Republic.  Northern Ireland is currently in an intermittent state of devolution (partial autonomy), something which Scotland already has, depending on how well the peace process goes.  

I've not been able to find much info on the KLA - Yugoslav struggles.  All I have seen indicates attacks or Yugoslav police & secret police, rather than attacks aimed at civillians.  I think that the majority of Yugoslavs fleeing the Kosovo area would have been as a result of the Yugoslav army's attacks there and the resulting tension & conflict both during and after the airstrikes - I've certainly not seen anything about burning villages - can you provide a link on this?


First of all, do you honestly believe that BBC (though I must admit, they're better than CNN) is going to report the proceedings fairly?

Actually, relatively impartial reporting has been a legal requirement of the British televisual media, unlike it would have been under milosevic.  Whilst the BBC is pro-British, I don't see how or why it would represent the views of the government, and i've never seen any evidence of a biased view.

Besides which, I only chose the BBC because it was handy.  I've no doubt there are many, many more places you could find that infromation - but I doubt you'd believe any English language (i.e. western) mainstream news site was unbiased, and I don;t speak any foreign languages to find one from what you may consider a 'neutral' country.

Its not like they're dropiing tennies balls out of a plane, these are satelitte guided bombs, and the satelitte doesnt care how high you drop them, its still accurate. Even if its was all accidents (I'm not saying it was, but for the sake of conversation), does that make it less horrific. The US was willing to sacrifice of civilian lives to perhaps lower the chance of a plane getting shot down. Civilains should be protected above all else, since they are guiltless. Every time a soldier goes into the field, he knows the risks. However, civilians getting bombs dropped on them are neither deserving of the fate, nor can do anything to prevent it. BTW as I've said, why did the "terrorist" crash into the WTC. Statistically speaking about 5k people died in the WTC. About that number died in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Just as the WTC victims were innocent, so were the Serbian victims innocents. I dare you to stand here and tell me a) the yugoslavian civilians were somehow more deserving of death or b)a yugoslavian life is worth less than an american life.

I'm not sure that the majority of weapons would have been satellite guided.  I mean, it wasn't solely a US operation - Dutch, UK, Turkish, Spanishm, Italian, etc aircraft were involved.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990601_01_n.shtml

Al-Queda & Bin Ladin considered US citizens as targets because they paid taxes to the US government.   I didn't say that Yugoslavs had any less right to live, or that their deaths were deserved.  But the NATO intervention (it was never really a war) did have the justification of trying to defend the Kosovans from (etc)

There is no 'nice' way to wage war.  But, militarily, airstrikes were the fastest and most effective (and, politically, the least dangerous to NATO forces) ways of launching the attack.  All I'm saying is that the motiviations behind the airstrikes were justified.

No, when the US realizes that their actions will go unopposed by the world, then you'll understand. When anyone who is againt the US starts getting an economic and military smackdown, then you'll understand.

I seriously doubt the US could ever get carte blanche... even the Iraq war has a measure of support (although, IMO, not enough to  claim it's anything other than unilateral).   I think they will have a prominent role in the world due to their superpower status, but I sincerely doubt they could take it over.

[Rictor]

Why should I disregard the actions of the rest of the world. Honestly, who do you think has killed more people in the past 20-30 years, the US or the Yugoslavs? I cannot condone what the Serbian army did, but  am saying that EVERYONE else is/was doing it, including the KLA, including the US, including the UK, including Iraq. So I do not see why the Yugoslav people are being singled out in this equation. It is hypocritical to condemn one action when your own government, and governments you support (from what I have gathered, you are rather in support of the US?) have done the same or worse. in Vietnam, the US killed 3 million people (I'de venture a guess that atleast 1/5 of those were women and children). But today, do you think of the US as champions of freedom or as mass murderers? ...Exactly..



I am not resonsible for the publicity (or lack thereof) of the KLA. However, I dont think that even you honestly believe that they sat on their hands while "Serbs creuly extermintaed the Albanian people". Its pretty much irrelevant who killed the first person, since that was like 10 years ago. Since then, bodies have been dropping on both sides. Of this I assure you. The KLA is/was by no means a nice bunch of people. According to you, if you cannot find the story on some website, it never happened. I highly doubt that you have ever been to Yugoslavia or that you have ever taken a peek at their TV/Radio broadcasts. I have, which makes my opinion in this matter a fair bit more informed than yours, since my knowledge comes closer to comepletness (or whatever the word may be) than yours. Whatever you may think, even in Milosevic's time the media was not "state brainwashed." Over the past 10 years, some very excellent independent stations have pop-ed up, including FreeB92 which recieved some big prize (I kind of remember it being related to the Oscars) in the US for independent journalism. George Bush would have you believe that every country outside the US and Western Europe braniwshes its citizens. What you are saying is that since you can find no link to the mass murder of Serbs by the KLA, it never happened. Please rethink this, and realize that the KLA is/was killers, without much care for human life, whether you call them terrorsts or freedom fighters, I personally dont care.

Ofcourse it is a legal requirement to be unbiased. I'm pretty sure that if you checked Iraqi law, it would say the same thing. The problem lies in this: when Iraqi TV glorifies Saddam and all the other crap, you can almost instantly hear the lies and bull****. However, CNN (and to a lesser degree) BBC,are never so open or blatant in their lies, so your bull**** meter stays rather low. Even though BBC (and most western media stations) are not state-owned, its pretty much as if they were. Since there are usually 1 or 2 TV stations that dominate the news service (BBC and SkyNews I think in the UK), these stations cast things in a "good" light (again, varying degrees) for whatever their country does. I think that in a country such as Yugoslavia, a) No one that is even semi inteligent blindly believes the state-news b)10 years of crappiness has spawned a new generation of independent stations , which in the end are more objective than the huge Western media companies. CNN isnt worried about the truth, their worried about stock prices and what general/politician they can get on their station to be interviewed. Being completely truthful is bad for both.

I really recommend you take a look at http://www.b92.net/english/ . In my opinion, these guys are among the best (most objective, since they explicitly refuse to be a mouthpiece for the government) new services in the world, and at the very least provide an alternate to CNN. They were born out of 10 years of turmoil in Yugoslavia, which makes them strive for fairness and the truth, moreso than for exmaple CNN or even the BBC.

__________

As for the US getting carte blanche, well wait and see. There are those countries who want to be on the winning side (UK, Australia etc), there are those who fear the US (smaller countries such as Macedonia, Estonia, Bulgaria etc), and those who want to oppose the US, but do not have the military. All this adds up to the US getting pretty much want they want. Do you think the UN will oppose them (and I mean militarily)? the US has realized that everyone talks big, but no one (of the major players in world politics) is willing to go so far as to oppose them outright..they called the UN's bluff.

Edit: about those big fancy looking lists you have. Its rather pointless, since all that proves is that you are more willing to go in search of lists than I am. I could just as easily go looking for a list of Serbians killed by the KLA and/or the bombing raids, if that will help change your opinion.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Rictor
The problem lies in this: when Iraqi TV glorifies Saddam and all the other crap, you can almost instantly hear the lies and bull****. However, CNN (and to a lesser degree) BBC,are never so open or blatant in their lies, so your bull**** meter stays rather low.

Actually, it's not even that. Both sides are fairly careless with the truth, and if you look at old news broadcasts with the hindsight five or so years offers, you'll usually go "How did I ever buy into that crap?"- at least, when the truth eventually outs, which isn't always the case. The difference is, the lies are crafted carefully to appeal to the preconceptions and political positions of the consumer, and those are by no means universal- what might be perfectly believable to an Iraqi is obvious horse**** to someone in the US, and vice versa. And, of course, the preconceptions that you base your level of belief on are formed by... the news! Great, isn't it?


Never mind that there's no doubt a degree of that one group of people naturally is more likely to dismiss another's news as lies than its own when they don't mesh anyway. But that's a less significant factor.

[Goober5000]

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441.

As well as many other resolutions passed before, during, and after the Gulf War, which are still in effect.

A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

This is debatable.  Why should the U.N. have total sovereignty over another nation?  U.N. resolutions are not binding by themselves; they're expressions of the consensus of will of the Security Council.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

Many of those resolutions passed against Israel were unjustified (relating to defense and capture of critical territory), and again, the U.N. doesn't have sovereignty over anyone.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

Iraq does have WMD.  We know because we've seen it use them.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

Not just the weapons themselves - Iraq finances terrorist organizations, who could themselves buy WMD.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such Weapons.

They do, because the inspectors found them (!) and they used them once Gulf War II started.

 

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials?

Yes.  Such as Russia.  This is why we have nonproliferation treaties.

We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

Iraq was fighting against Iran at the time, and we believed Iran to be the nastier foe.  And I'm not positive we sold them WMD.

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.

A valid reason why we should remove him even if he had no WMD.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

And during WWII we allied with another cruel dictator who killed his own people - Stalin.  Because Germany was the bigger threat.

Anyway, shouldn't we want to correct previous mistakes?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

That was not a pre-emptive first strike. It was an invasion to seize Kuwait's oil assets.  Unprovoked.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

No information about this.

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

Not just al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

We may have actually done that, but we can't confirm it so we swept it under the rug.

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

bin Laden wanted to instigate a war anyway - he knew that the U.S. would wipe out the "Iraqi infidels" if a war came to pass.  Then the Muslim world would be angry at the U.S.  Two birds with one stone.

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

Plaigiarism, which was unfortunate.  But that doesn't make it false.

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

No information on this.

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

Who may have been bribed.  People are wondering about that.  And Blix has had several "slips of the tongue" that could be interpreted as showing that he's not letting on everything he knows.

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

More complicated than that, but essentially yes.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.You're missing the point.

Exactly.  The inspectors are there to supervise the disarmament, not to go treasure hunting.  The onus is on Iraq to disarm.  Other countries who have disarmed haven't gone through the gymnastics that Iraq is doing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html

PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences."

And other resolutions, as well.  Or you could argue that we're finishing Gulf War I.  The end of that war was predicated upon Iraq's cooperation.

If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.

The main point is to follow through with what we started earlier (Gulf War I and the initial establishment of disarmament) and to show terrorists and terrorist states that they don't have carte blanche to get away with stuff.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

Which, by the way, would be abandoning its earlier position.  And we shouldn't even NEED a second resolution.  Nor a Resolution 1441, for that matter.

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

And about forty others.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

A bit of blackmail, that.  So we withdrew the offer.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

Public opinion was against WWII during the 20s and 30s.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

Not necessarily.  Leaders have responsibility to lead.  This may mean going against the will of the people if it's important enough.  Both Blair and Bush are risking their political future over this.

WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

Not this again.  No he wasn't.  He was elected - publicly and openly - by the Electoral College.  And as far as the Supreme Court goes, they ruled 7-2 that the system of recounts was unconstitutional.  The 5-4 was only about what the court thought Florida should do next.

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

Not blindly support the decisions.  But think them through and come to a rational conclusion.
 

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.

You can protest - in fact, many have been doing so.  However, protesting during a war is counterproductive.  I'd call it treason... giving comfort to our enemies by showing them that the U.S. isn't totally behind this.  As long as we're fighting the war, support the troops.  Then when the war's done, show your dissatisfaction by voting.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

Again, the burden is on Iraq, not the inspectors.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?

Because THEY'RE NOT COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS.  If they didn't have them, they'd be only too glad to prove it.  Instead, they're doing nothing and letting the inspectors run around the country.

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

Not all of them, not always, and nothing's preventing them from manufacturing more.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.

Because Iraq is failing to live up to its 12-year-old agreement.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

Because we've been trying diplomacy for 12 years and it hasn't worked.  Iraq can't be reasoned with.  It remains to be seen whether North Korea can be reasoned with.

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

Which might be recouped with more oil being opened up for trade, but this is not certain.  Anyway, from a strategic point of view invading Iraq is sending the world a message: don't mess with us.  Which serves yet another useful purpose.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

Possibly, but the more terrorism is rooted out, the harder it will be for them to do anything about it.  But I doubt much will happen - there isn't much love for Saddam Hussein in the Muslim world.  They're blustering, but they aren't doing anything.

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

Hopefully, not much, and hopefully, not for long.  These solutions aren't ideal.

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

We're invading because we're living up to the responsibility Gulf War I thrust upon us.  We're not shirking from what is right.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

No.  But we've listened anyway.  And we've been "peaceful" for
12 years.

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

We have an obligation to do none of these - the U.N. doesn't override a nation's sovereignty.  On the other hand, the Security Council unanimously approved 1441.  They're going back on their word.

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.

Because it's a straw man.  See the previous point.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.

Or be a human shield.  And come back and tell us what you see.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F03%2F23%2Fdo2305.xml

Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

I wish you would.