protected from the truth?

[Clodhopper]

I recently stumbled upon a very disturbing site and saw images of the dead and injured Iraqi people...sickening. yet its the truth, that one would never see on american television. should we be lied to to maintain support for this war? or "spared from disgusting images" or "protected". This war should not be censored-at all. CNN IS LYING TO ME.

War photos. be warned.
http://www.marchforjustice.com/id191.htm

so do you think images like these should be broadcasted on TV? or is reality too much for the public?

[otis]

I don't think thast showing gruesom pictures helps you in any way of making a rational decision. Because such pictures just stir up emotions that are usually unproductive. So if you think we should be seeing images of dead people and soldiers in Iraq, then we should've shown the smashed and burned people in the World trade Center? What goodwould this do? Everyone already knows that war,death, murder, accidents, terrorism..etc is ugly.
CNN may sugar coat or politically spin the news for us, but times have changed. The news does not give us "just the facts", they are always fighting for ratings. the news networks have pimped themsleves out to get the best ratings. Infact it's all a show; dramatic music, annoying graphics, logos, wannabe superstar actors who end up being reporters,..etc.

If you want to see nasty images, just rent faces of death or somthing...as for me, I don't need or want to see that shit.

[otis]

I just visited that site:

Talk about political spin and purpose!! That site is using those images for their own purpose!!! See, everyone has their own agenda...obviously it worked on you.

[Clodhopper]

what worked on me? It didn't change any of my views about the war. I didn't name the thread "I'm anti war now becuase look at these dead children" Its simply made me angry when i whatch CNN, that it is censored. I don't like whatching news for real information and then have it sugarcoated.

do you like being ignorant? is that what it is?

This blind "patriotism" is making me a little ill. Its one thing to have faith in your government, and support your country. but it is another to blindly follow everything they tell you- seek no other outside source- and be lead around like blind cows by the popular hand of CNN, which jerks the public off-with lies about "freedom" and "liberating iraq"
flashy logos and celebrity reporters are one thing, but the problem is not that narrow-
There is this overwhelming attitude that the proud American soldiers are crushing the evil Iraqi army and saving the innocent people from the cruel and murderous regime of a crazed dictator. thats bullshit. sometimes people need to see the truth, what is really happening when American bombs destroy innocent lives. and whether it is for a justified and valiant cuase or not, they should see the casualties- then decide if its worth it or not. otherwise its just superficial to them; they will go on living the lie of "world protector" that we Americans make ourselves out to be.
we are all being lied to, I beleive nothing i read or hear becuase no one really has accurate information. I just buy more stock in photos because they can't lie as well as text. its all American propaganda.

[Clodhopper]

What goodwould this do? Everyone already knows that war,death, murder, accidents, terrorism..etc is ugly.

its a profound phenomenon. seeing these images. why don't people want to see them? it's real, its the truth. I know why. its beecuase Americans don't like to see that they have blood on their hands, these photos would make them ashamed. its a reminder of negative things. its makes their swollen egos droop a little, that ultra patriot state of mind fades slightly and they ask themselves "are we really doing the right thing?"
but it makes us happier to live the lie of coming to rescue the Iraqi innocents and battling evil. and to say, "i already can imagine how horrible it is for those people" is just naive. look at the damn photos.

[wassermelone]

Look. CNN never lied to you. NEVER did they say people would not get hurt, or even die. Its not blind patriotism... if they did that they would never have told us about the POWs. There are enough predominantly muckraking stations that I don't doubt that showing pictures of wounded enemy citizens is probably unlawful in the Geneva convention.

[Clodhopper]

okay okay...maybe "lying" is not the right term..."deceiving?" cuase its definately deceiving.

and not CNN specifically- the US media in general.

[Coma]

First thing I'd like to point out is that I'm not pro war.

But I'd also like to point something else out.

How the fuck can you honestly say that this source is any more creditable than CNN or any of the other media giants that candy coat war?

Its apparent enough to me that the Iraqi government is capable of killing its own people... Then again I also understand "collateral damage" or "accidents"... and all that crap that goes with the word "war"...

So I stress this point!!! This bullshit can get discussed for hours but the simple fact is there are to many conflicting sources in this situation. because BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION ARE FLAWED!!!
War or no war people are dying... And it will never fucking stop...

[Mr.Magnetichead]

Dude, some of those pics are from the first gulf war.

Some of those pics are the results of the iraqis own uprising against saddam.

It was that sites agenda to make u think it was THIS war. But it isnt.

[KayCustomz]

a site that would play mind games

[otis]

why do you think that it's all a conspiracy? These reporters are risking their lives to bring you the truth. reportrs are relaying to us accounts and experiences of Iraqi people welcoming the collation forces. Why do WANT to believe that it's all a spin? This war has been more televised, reported, and followed than any previouse war in history. I think that there must be more reporters over there than anywhere else in the world right now. You're not getting propaganda and lies. I pitty your anger.

[usagi yojimbo]

i didnt actually see the site cause im using a public computer and i want to get in trouble for going there but...

the thing is that maybe those reporters are doing everything you say but every bit of information that gets sent back can be edited, adn most of it we dont see. everything has to be cut to fit on tv, for every hour of footage they only actually show a few seconds, if that. TV stations are competing for ratings so they'll show us the parts that they think we want to see. make no mistake even if the reporters are doing whatever they can to keep us as informed as possible whoever decides what gets put on air only cares about ratings and they determine ultimately what we see. so no, its not a government conspiracy or propaganda but isnt it the truth either

[cucaracha]

These "embedded reporters" are in a difficult situation.

They are travelling with troops who protect them - so they would never give bad comments or crits on them.

The bad thing is that no reporters without a "license" by the US troops are allowed to report or travel deep into Iraq.
The reporters with a license are "embedded Reporters".

ATM, no one knows exactly whats going on.
Theres no broadcast (sp?) which can report about all facts.

Until then, everyone should look on both sides I think, don't be blind or stubborn.
cu

[Clodhopper]

I don't really beleive that this site is really the truth either. I don't know what to beleive. but i refuse to accept everything american media tells me. and I will seek as many sources as i can becuase thats the only way i can keep it balanced. I'm so sick of one sided stories. I wish i knew arabic so i could whatch arabian television...what better way to really understand whats going on in the minds of the arab country's than to whatch their television newscasts? or is it all "anti American propaganda"
Are those Iraqis fools to beleive the propaganda that America is evil, holy war and this and that...then are we so naive to beleive that we havn't been influenced by propaganda ourselves?

as for those "embedded reporters" they are simply pawns of the US government. the military would never allow them to see or say anything that might cuase an upset, or not work in their favor. Of course I'm angry Otis, and I pity your ignorence and naivety. you are far too trusting.

are they Persian Gulf war photos? maybe all that video we see on CNN is really just old desert storm clips? hell, i saw a clip on CNN last week i could swear the burning building in the forground was computer generated. theres no truth, all crediblilty can be shot down. but again- photos can't lie as well as text or dialogues, and they bring emotion like no news confrence can....at least IMHO

either way, no matter what purpose there was behind posting these images. Everyone should look at them, seeing pain and suffering is more profound than hearing or knowing about it.

[otis]

you sound like the niave one. you're so angry and paranoid that you can't believe anything at all. So what do you believe besides, george bush is an alien, the media is controled by the gov't, we all are part of one big conspiracy,..? Dude, you will never be able to know what is in the minds of every arab or anyone in the world. You think our news is filtered and full of lies, ...hey budy, go pick up a the news paper The Arab Wolrd..it might be in arabic, but most of the headlines are in English. They get the same reports(or what you call lies) that we get. They even follow the fucking NBA! But you think that every news agency in the world is a pawn of the U.S. govt? come on you sound crazy. We are not the only reporters over there. Every fucking country is reporting this war. you think that our gov't is pay'n them all off to tell the same story?? your not naive, your crazy. get help.

[Coma]

either way, no matter what purpose there was behind posting these images. Everyone should look at them, seeing pain and suffering is more profound than hearing or knowing about it.
I definitely concur.
the site made me weep, and I walk away with a better understanding of myself and the world I exist in.
Never settle for your flaws grow and be humbled.

[otis]

well put coma.

[otis]

As for deception , I agree with you Clod. every news-breaking story falls upon semi deaf ears with me. I understand that these news agencies are trying to "get a story" even if there is no real story. That's what I hate about the media, they are always trying to make somthing out of nothing. So, to say the least I am not glued to my t.v. like most people probably are. But at the same time, I keep myslef aware of political spins, and agnedas too. especially when the source is using photos. Photos are sucha powerfull medium to distort the truth. especially when you throw a quote under it like that website did. How do we "know" what hurt that child, or why that lady is crying? do you hear my point?

But with every event there is is always some truth to it, you just have to listent o the fact, and not get caught up in the way it is relayed to you.. especially when it gets confirmed by news agencies around the world.

[otis]

just don't go so far as saying we are all being lied to by our gov't. In war time the military can't share specific information such as locations and sensitve info. for the safety of our men over there. So you are right when the press can only share so much info out there. But they are not trying to fool us, they are just trying to give us as much info with out jeopordizing (sp?)the division they are traveling with.
In the end the stories will come out, and so will the books and documentries. Just like what happened in Somalia. The whole story wont come out until certain people can't be hurt anymore...like Clinton in somalia, Johnson in Vietnam,..etc.

Clod your just going to have to wait untill it's all over to get the whole story.

[arkanos]

The first dead in a war is the truth

[Clodhopper]

well at least Coma understands. and I agree Otis, the quotes under the pictures distort the meaning of the photos. but the photos themselves still hold a sense of profound and sharp reality that I hadn't felt about this war till i saw them. and i just wanted others to see if it affected them the same way.

have i ever once said "conspiracy"? you make me out to be a lunatic, which i find irritating becuase your posts are mostly brash presumptions-and very little support for your arguement. but eitherway, its thought provoking.

but no one ever ever answered the damn question in the first place!

Q: should the US public be shown these photos? is it right to hide reality from them? or should they be burried becuase they are hard to stomach?

personally, i wish every american would see them [just the photos, not the whole website and its "rightous" cuase]. so that their opinions could be influenced by that of truth and reality. and the not the sugar coated media bullshit.

[fletchgirl]

personally, i think it's weird we're being shown and told as much as we are. i mean, the soldiers themselves can't even always write their folks and tell them what country they're in, (i know one family who hasn't heard from their brother in two months) but the news is giving us troop positions relative to the city and telling us what airports we have in our control, where we're flying from and what we're dropping. i, for one, HOPE they're misleading us because we know everyone else (including saddam) watches CNN also. i'm sorry, clod, this has nothing really to do with your post.

here's what does:
i don't think we're not allowed to see them, i just think that most news services aren't going to put those kind of images on the air. the reporters also don't curse on air, although that's a perfectly resonable reaction to what's going on. I have the feeling that if there are things you're not supposed to know or see, you wouldn't be knowing or seeing them. it's not that i'm happy about that, or i want to be led around like a sheep, but whatever.

Anyway, that's why i like photojournalism better than the "news" because you see an image, and you form your own opinion. you don't have to listen to a reporter trying to be emotional, but not too emotional...
ech. i'm gonna stop rambling now.

[otis]

Codhopper,

sorry, you may not be a lunatic, but, with a limited medium of communication with message boards, we all sound crazy somtimes. I admit, I'm no english major, my writting is terrible. I'm much better at speaking. I mostly use these war forums to vent, or start debates. So I guess I'm kind of a trouble maker... Like I posted before, we all probably have the same basic ideas, we just miscommunicate them thru posts. So occasionally we will make harsh statements with out any thesis or support, but heck, if we had to write a paper to back up every point nobody would read post anymore. Besides, there are poeple here who won't even believe in facts presented...(conspiracy theorists, ya know the peeps who think everything is a lie)

My answer to you photo ?:

Those photos shopuld not be used by the media or the gov't.
The only reality those photos show us is the immediate picture or subject of the matter, ie:woman crying, dead baby, what ever. So by this, you can't call those photos reality, it's like calling a painting a reality. Photos and art have the same qualities and powers to convey a message. I mean, you could use a photo of a dead baby to make people hate Saddam and his regeim. At the same time use it to make Bush and Americans look bad too. When all along, that photo may not even be current or relative to this conflict.

Look, if you saw a picture of a dead Iraqi soldier would you still be sick? Or a nazi who tortured milllions of jews in a camp? Probably not. Why? You can't ignor the fact that war had to happen to stop a bigger evil. In my opinion that is a just cause. Sure I think it sucks that millions of Germans, Japanese, Americans, Russian,, Birtish,..etc (the list goes on)
had to die brutally in WW2. But it was for a cause. If you don't believe in the cause to liberate Iraqi people from Saddams regeim, then fine. But don't try to justify your opinion with photos. Becasue the photos can justify both sides.

[Clodhopper]

Becasue the photos can justify both sides

thats EXACTLY it! they justify both sides; its a level playing field, a paradox...its purified of all patriotic/self rightuos/misinformed bullshit! it is what it is and it invokes an opinion. thats why I beleive it should be broadcasted to the masses, cuase its both sides. not American not Iraqi...just real. the way media SHOULD be, imho

Otis, I can respect the way that you seem certain that America is doing all this for a just cuase. Many people agree with you, and i do also-to a point. It is neccesarry to rid Iraq of Saddam, that much is clear...

but I firmly beleive that Bush is doing it the wrong way. there are simply better ways this war could have been carried out. Saddam is not a clear and present threat to any country at the time war was declared on him, and with the world whatching- it woulda been hard to compile his army and more weapons to become a threat. so there was no rush! why couldn't we just wait and build support from the UN and handle the situation more dilpomatically? "oh, cuase the Iraqi people are suffering!" so we have to rush in and save them right NOW? There are millions of people suffering in the world, starving under opressive governments just like the iraqis, {north korea, India, cambodia-lots of countries} If americans want to be "world protectors" ain't it easier to fight hunger, than armed soldiers- besides, food supplies have got to be cheaper than missiles. Why did we choose to place all our attention on Iraq? cuase they have oil? cuase of the prior conflict in the past decade? those don't seem like good enough reasons to me, - please post if you have a better reason and can explain the situation to me.-
therefore i feel anger and and an amount of guilt too. becuase those deaths portrayed in the photos do not seem justified to me.

[otis]

You are right when you said that there are other people being brutalized by their current gov't, or regeims. But your idea of solving these problems doesn't work 99 percent of the time. Some excamples:

We currently send and $pend millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to hungry people all over the world. There is not ONE country in the whole world who send more aid than we do.

But this effort does not make the situation better.
One recent example is Somalia. See, when you have an opressive gov't it does not give to the people, it only takes. so sending aid to them just gets filtered out from the true people that need it, and ends up strengthening the gov't that does not.

"Build support from the U.N." you ask? Were you not watching what was happening in the U.N.? If you think Saddam has to go, then you understand why the U.N. is useless. France, and Germany(who have veto powers) were not going to remove Saddam under ANY circumstance. If you think Saddam's regiem was going to change you are crazy. See, the U.N. does not work. It can't resolve or stop anything. If you want me to give examples of it's massive failure, here are just a few: Somalia, Serbia, and the mass genocide that they allowed in Africa.

You have valid, typical questions Clog, but your answers will lead you to the same outcome: You have to fight for what is right somtimes, because food, apeasment, kiss-assing, deals wont do it.

Saddam has ignored and scoffed at the world community for 14 years. that's fine, who cares right? Well, why have international treaties? Why have diplomats, or diplomacies if it doesn't matter if a country refuses to sign or go along? Technically Iraq never signed one treaty controlling weapons of mass destruction. Now N. Korea is breaking treaties left and right because (in my opinion) they know the world will not unite against them.
So, you think appeasing them with food, aid, technology...will solve these problems?

I think you know it wont.

o

[Clodhopper]

whos Clog?
anyway, I think you are being too brash and self rightous to say that we are fighting for whats right. Those countries are refuseing to go along with the US becuase uh, maybe we arn't right?
let me make something very clear Ogis. whenever there is a conflict. there are ALWAYS 2 SIDES. in the conflict at hand, there is another side, not just the American one. I think you need to at least make an attempt to understand why other countries refuse to follow an American led war. there are many countries in the world that are angered by the poor dicisions our president has made, and I'm not just talking about Arab nations. does that concern you? maybe the world is more likely to unite against America. because American diplomacy failed so badly the reprocussions of this war are going to strain future relations with countries all over the world-as well as cost millions and kill Us soldiers, British soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and iraqi innocents in the process...but at least the Iraqi people will be free, and "evil" will be defeated right? there had to be a hundred better ways for America to handle the situation. so diplomacy is not useless, Bush just failed to do it properly.

[otis]

Clod, I give up...if you think the world hates the u.s.a then forget it. I can't even debate with you if you assume that. Tell, me WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE? and then tell me WHY it would've worked. I bet you can't. If you can, then I look foward to learning somthing.

[otis]

:confused:

[otis]

sorry for all the posts, but before you call me self rightouse give me an answer, and lets get your facts straight:

1.It's a coalation: 17-20 other nations are behind us!

2. Diplomacy was thru the U.N.=so the U.N. failed

3.If you think Saddam has a legitamite "side" then defend IT.

4.I know why other countries like France and Germany refused to remove Saddam: Economics.
Lybia, Angola, Iran, ...they all run the same type of gov'ts!

give me a solution! this is not about self rightousness, I'm all ears for a better solution..hell the whole fucking world is!

[otis]

Lastly, if "diplomacy is not useless" then tell me why Saddam refused to go along with the rest of the wolrd in destroying or stop producing WofMD? And what are we supposed to do about it???? He wont sign or agree to anything. The U.N. made resolution asfter resolution that he ignored. Give me ONE example or instance where he FULLY cooperated with us on a resolution or treaty...

I am being completely open and want to hear your answers, if you are getting mad about it, that's you being self rightous!
I'm open for solutions!

[Clodhopper]

lol, what WofMD? Saddam's nation is falling, don't you think he woulda used them if he had them?...Its so screwed up. and those 14 barrels or whatever they found yesterday are all they've found? 14 fucking barrels! after years of UN weapon inspectors, countless satalite and recon survailance from several nations, and now at least a week of full scale invasion by Britain and America and they havn't found jack shit. worries me, how pissed is the world gonna be if it turns out we attacked a nation in the name of defense and it turns out that it wasn't even a real threat? the "freeing Iraqi people" is just a bonus-Americans love stuff like that. The American government would never go to war simply becuase a government is torturing civilians in prisons or whatever. It never has in past, and there are plenty of other countries that are suffering more. It was America that kept making accusations and whining to the UN that Iraq is doing such terrible things...furthermore, UN said "well wheres the proof?" even the American people said "wheres the proof?" and Saddam himself allowed weapons inspectors in for months to do what the UN sent them to. Saddam did cooperate for a short while. and Bush said "we got undeniable proof" WELL WHERE THE FUCK IS IT!!! the UN was nerver given a fair chance at diplomacy and now people are dying-US soldiers too- and theres still no goddam proof! how can you call my anger self rightous? how can you say there was no way around this war. I can't say how the American government should have handled this situation properly, no one can- but its obvious -they FAILED to handle it properly.

only time will tell if WofMD will be found-or the "smoking gun" they are looking for. and for god's sake, i hope they find them...i hope we find a ton and look like heros. but won't it be a bad fucking mess if weapons never turn up? Bush better plant the evidence himself if it comes to that...

[jrr]

otis, you're a better man than i for even bothering. this will be my first and last post on this and any other similiar threads. .. the only good thing about these types of threads is to get that blood flowing. richard roeper has a great article on the chicago sun times website. about celebrities and the war. you should read it. oh and about pictures of dead babies. there's this dude where i work, well, outside of where i work, he's always on a loud speaker screaming about things and around him is poster sized pictures of abortted fetus'. i'm guessing he's anti abortion and unemployed. one of these days i'll take a picture of him and post it on here. he's there to give children nightmares. "look kids! that man was born without common sense!"

ah... so is the world we live in. the us media didn't show pictures of the dead soildiers too with the bullet holes in their foreheads either. how dare they for withholding infomation! damn cnn for covering that up! right? showing pictures of headless children or headless soilders is in bad taste and will make people lose their lunch. what good does any of that do.

gimme a break.

ps. about the recent "die in" that's been taking place in nyc last week. you can tell most of these people weren't from nyc. they were "dying in" to show new york how the everyday life is disrupted in iraq because of the war...... sorry honey we already had our "die in" 2 years ago, i guess you missed out on that.
what i found most amusing was the pictures the protestors were holding up. one reporter asked this woman if she knew where the picture came from, he told her that's a rather famous picture from when saddam gassed the kurds. she didn't know. but that didn't stop her from screaming. so vocal about something she knows nothing about. don't you love that?
ah. what a world we live in. when the voice of reason is shouted down. well atleast there's dennis miller.
:rolleyes:

[cucaracha]

Originally posted by otis

3.If you think Saddam has a legitamite "side" then defend IT.


Sorry, but the first thing I thought, when I read this was "Everyone who's not with us is against us!"
Anyways

Originally posted by otis

4.I know why other countries like France and Germany refused to remove Saddam: Economics.


The reason why countries like France and Germany refused to remove Saddam: Democracy.
The people just didn't want to go into a war.
A "funny" thing about that: Some experts speculate that Bush started this war also because of economics - because he nearly ruined the american economic. A war is an old tool to divert the people's minds from national problems.

For my position: I don't think its absolutely necessary to bomb Saddam. And missions to capture oil fields make it look like a conquest war.
But - if any troops down there find any serious mass destruction weapon, I'd say the war is full legitimately.

The problem with the UN: The people over here in Europe think it's very symbolic that the US don't care about that institution. :(
They made it only once by now, yes. But I hope the will never ever do it again.

All my wishes for the troops down there, I'll be happy when this war is over.
cu

[otis]

I recently whent to traffic school and we were discussing who has rights of way, and pedestrian crossing etc. and I asked the question if it was illegal to run over those die-in protestors, who were obstructing traffic. The instructor said, "technicaly,...no". lol!

[Clodhopper]

okay Jrr...people are dying in a unjustifiable war, that you seem to be okay with. and you are want to bitch about ignorant assholes with signs blocking traffic-who arn't even from nyc!!...what a world we live in indeed. blocking traffic is one thing, I'm just having a debate here, where reading my posts are voluntary. what the fuck is your problem? go whatch denis miller,and let your opinion be given to you.

[otis]

cucaracha,

Budy, you got good intentions. But if you allow me to clear up a fact, if France and Germany are pure Democracies, then you are right, they make decisions based on mob rule. Personally I think that's a messed up way to make decisions, because the mob is not always right...how do you think the Nazi Socialst Party came to power?????

Now about economic:

Your so called "experts" are wrong. Every undergrag in economics knows that economics is a delayed reaction: Basically current presidents have no effect on immediate economic conditions. Sure they can try to influence the market, but the direction it goes in is purely the result of the PAST administrations. we all know why we are in a weaker economy now than when we were in the 90's......the DOT.COM BOMB. the DOT COM bombed becuase it was a false gravy train that too many people jumped on. Trust me , I was in the industry! Ofcourse we will not recover or even brake even from that bomb, and no president can help! Bush took office when we were already declining, he had nothing to do with it.

about us conquering oil fields:

We are not even flying our flags over those areas, just to make the point that we ARE NOT CONQUERING.

about the U.N. and opinions:

I pitty anybody who makes judgments upon symbology. Give me a break.

[otis]

Clod,

I hear you budy, but all we can do is wait and see if it was justifiable in the end:
If the iraqi people truely apreaciate Saddam being removed, WofMD are found and destroyed, and democracy can start to grow over there.

Don't declare somthing unjustified until we really know what is going on. And have SOME faith in your gov't...dam.

[Clodhopper]

otis...thats a hard one to answer...
Don't declare somthing unjustified until we really know what is going on
so when American bombs are destroying a city...I should just keep my mouth shut, trust my government and hope everything turns out justified in the end? ...i won't. I'm angry that a war has been started before substantial proof has been found. Its like executing a criminal before the evidence comes out-and I'm a fan of capital punishment! But they have to be found guilty first! not after the fact! now how can you ask me to have faith in a system like that? ain't gonna happen.
but i hope you are right. I hope it tunrs out like that with "democracy growing" and whatnot...but don't you ask yerself what if?

furthermore. I think you missed Cu's point about Europe. look, Europe is pissed that America didn't work with the UN like it should have. don't disreguard his view becuase you don't like the word "symbol". and there are many more countries that support the UN long before they support America-and i bet they are pissed too.

and speaking of symbols...
We are not even flying our flags over those areas, just to make the point that we ARE NOT CONQUERING. I pity anyone who makes judgements based on fucking flags. whats the price of gas for you Otis? its like $2.60 a gallon here in Detroit. Let me hear what it costs in other nations. ain't it like $6 a gallon in Britain, and i think i heard $8 in Italy. how about you Cu? [correct me if I'm wrong] don't you think that makes us look bad in the eyes of the world? its like trading blood for oil. and like Cu says, missions to capture oil fields sure as hell make it look like a conquest war. I wish Saddam would burn them all. then Bush would lose interest in Iraq real fast if there wasn't any oil-cuase it is economics, all of it. Germany, France and America alike all do it for economics. not "freeing the iraqi people" that is such a crock.

[otis]

1. For the past 10 years and 6months the U.N. has been dealing with Saddam's neglect and crimes.

2.Gas is expensive becuase people are nervouse, even though there is plenty of oil in the market. the price of oil was raised by the oil companies to play on people's emotions. We don't get our oil from Iraq. The oil companies set the price, and they are using this time of war as an excuse for higher prices.

3.The U.N. has had over 20 years of "substancial proof" of Iraq's chemical weapons capablitiies..hell Iraq even declared how much they produced a year, used it in the Iran vs Iraq war, used it on the Kurds killing a whole CITY of innocent civilians... but you want more proof???

See Clod, you want to believe that the U.S. is some sort of corrupt, illigitamite, lying, decieving, controls the outcome of elections, plants chemical weapons on enemies, never whent to the moon, ....then there are 2 things you should do:

1. RUN LIKE HELL
2. Get a gun a rebel against the gov't

Becuase if there is a gov't that strong, corrupt, evil , decieving, ....votes, protests, wont stop it.

but I know you wont do anything like this because you just want to bitch, and you honestly don't beleive what you are saying. You have not backed up one point, or statemet with a fact. So go on and scream how angry you are, your not convincing anyone.

[cucaracha]

Originally posted by otis
Personally I think that's a messed up way to make decisions, because the mob is not always right...how do you think the Nazi Socialst Party came to power?????


Come on, you can't be serious with that. You have to look at the situation in what people were in those times.
It looks like you say "the mob chooses the nazi way".

And if I may remind you: The Nazis came in power because the people didn't know about the planned regime. The Nazis promised work and food to them and the people followed.
They only had about 20% of the votes, but they killed all other politics.

Please don't combine the past with the current political situation of Europe.

But I agree with you, the mob isn't always right.
One person is intelligent but thousand persons are as dumb as bread ;)
cu

[otis]

So you think mob rule is always right???...

You are saying the majority of people in Germany were anti-Nazi? Then why didn't they revolt???? All I know is that when the US and Russians came through Berlin, Germans were fighting to their last man....

[Clodhopper]

of course the young men in Germany joined the army, if they didn't follow orders, they got killed-or their families got killed. I would have fought for the germans and been a "nazi" also if my government was gonna hurt my family if i didn't. yer views are so blunt and disproportionate Otis. and many germans did try to help, they gave food and helped the jews hide. and many of them got killed for doing it.

As for the argument "well why don't they just revolt and get their independence like we Americans did against the English back in the day?" The revolutionary war was a much difforent situation. for one, there were no automatic weapons, armored tanks and large scale bombs. the kind that would be used on any revolt that posed a real threat. it was muskets and cavalry-and furthermore, There was a fucking ocean between england and America. the control that England had in that war is no where near the amount of power that Governments have within their own countries. there was no way for the germans to revolt, and there was no real way for the iraqi people to revolt on their own either. so stop this "we did it. why can't they?" bullshit that I've heard so many times.

[otis]

Learn to read bud, you are now changing my words around so that you can try to argue a point that has NOTHING ot do with this topic.. I never said like "we did in our revolutioanry war" .
You stupid naysayer, anit -gov't /war idiots were all saying that the Iraqi people should have overthrown Saddam themsleves. So I made the point you used in the beginning!

The germans were great fighters, and they BELIEVED in their gov't and Fuerer. There was a small minority that did not believe in their gov't. Mostly the older generations. Compared to the Italians who didin't believe in Musolini, inturn the Italians never put up a real fight. Just like the Iraqi's never put up a fight against us. This is the biggest "I told you so"!!!! All you anti-bush / war freaks have been screaming that the Iraqi people didn't want us to come in...but if you have a brain and watched this morning, when we took off the american flag from Saddam's head, and replaced it with the original Iraq flag, before we HELPED them tear down the statue, Iraqi civiians picked up the U.S flag and began to wave and wear it. Mind you this Eastern area of Baghdad is full of Suni's (Saddam loyalist). OH, but wait!.I forgot,,, you are so disillusioned that you probably think our gov't staged this whole scene...

Hey you live in Michigan, go out and tell those Iraqi Americans what you think...tell them we should've never gone into Iraq.

I wont even try to debate with you cause you have NO ARGUMENTS,,you come back with tangents, never answer a question, try to twist other people's words, and dont' have a clue.
I hope you keep speaking up about you feelings on the war, because you are making the anti-war movment look stupid.:D

[cucaracha]

Otis,

Originally posted by otis
So you think mob rule is always right???...

You are saying the majority of people in Germany were anti-Nazi? Then why didn't they revolt???? All I know is that when the US and Russians came through Berlin, Germans were fighting to their last man....

Sorry if you didn't understand my post.

I said

But I agree with you, the mob isn't always right.
One person is intelligent but thousand persons are as dumb as bread

And

They only had about 20% of the votes, but they killed all other politics.

Of course you can't know everything about german history.
In fact, the vote went out with ca. 20% for the Nazis.
The Nazis had troops and killer-commandos (The SS for example) of dumb young and willing people to eliminate every enemy of the Nazi regime.
At first, the regime didn't show plans do kill jews or go into war.
They really did good to the people to convince them, offered jobs and improved the industry.
Once the people were persuaded, the regime showed their real face.
The persecution of Jews began and soon Poland was attacked.
And, if I may add it, the social party and the communists revolted against them, but the regime persecuted them too.
Who else to vote if there's only one person pointing with guns at you?

That's the reason why I refuse to be patriotic. In the regime it first lead to proud, then to arrogance and finally to hate for other.

The people in Germany were in a very similar situation fifty years ago like the people in Iraq today. Just think of the "Luftbruecke" (Airlift) in Berlin.

This is not a bad crit - just open-hearted:
Don't judge anyone until you know enough about him.

I was happy today when I saw the celebrating Iraqis. I hope there'll be some US/UK military-police to stop them from pillaging ;)

greetings,

cucaracha

[sparth]

otis, you are really an amazing dude. so sure of the whole thing, so convinced and confident into your own ideology... i respect your optimism. don't take it bad, but i hope you do realise that your comment sometimes contains the visible arrogance of your own convictions, letting the debate float in a disturbing state, as it is quite hard answering to somebody that cannot accept the negative aspects of its own world and society. however, reading your numerous posts, i saw you changing and accepting facts that i thought you would never accept, and that's definitely one definition of an opened mind.

as for clodhopper, i respect american mates that are able to raise disturbing questions about their own country, as it is a wealthy attitude. falling into mediatic traps and net photos labyrinths is another subject.
it makes me think about that conservative american articles upset by michael moore's comments about the whole system, bringing arguments to destroy the guy.
if the truth is hard to accept, it may be even more dramatic trying to minimise or remove it. in other words, it's like putting gloves on dirty hands instead of going to the bathroom and clean them.

the reason why france and germany didn't want to go to war is because:
- it may not be a good reason, but both leaders listened to the respective population opinions. no matter what people may say, it remains a democratic attitude. in germany, the actual government respects the pacifist convictions of the population. it is a fact: the usa are upset because of the french attitude, especially because fo the veto. (a true dilema for me, as i am definitely pro american, against the actual situation, and against this veto that has transformed france into a useful scapegoat) but the divorce is ten times more dramatic between germany and the us.
- the arabic and turkish minorities are very important in both countries. it is not possible, as in the US, to make such war decisions that easily.
- the historical links, despite the dictatorial status of irak, were strong, it's a fact. in the same way, the close ties between the US and saudi arabia cannot hide the fact that this country is a hidden dictature, supported by the US. the situation is exactly the same, except that it has to remain secret to the eyes of occidentals, as the US-saudi oil infrastructure must absolutely not be disturbed by any fundamentalist revolution.
france probably had close links with the iraqi system, which is as despicable as for the other case. damn interests ....
- we, in europe, are a bit more conscious of the middle east situation, simply because we live closer, and that we receive the arabic conflictual situations with a greater impact than in the states.
- germany and france have a very different vision for the middle east. they tend to listen to the arabic voice, more that in america. the historical reasons are very clear. israel, that america has supported in its rightous combat against the nazis, has a major influence on american politics. the ties between both countries are therefore amazingly strong.
(on the opposite, during ww2, old europe had blood on its hand because of the nazi genocide, and the despicable antisemit crazyness followed by a lot of countries, especially france. the american entering into the war finally put an end to all this despicable european period.) it is a huge and disturbing debate, as some may wonder if there might be other reasons why the european pro arabic politics are so strong...anyway
the balance is simply different. the american support to israel prevents them from making strong ties with the muslim world, even though some arabic allies remain faithfull to the US.

concerning the coalition victory: i'm relieved. but i don't see anything that would make me happy in the whole situation, except the fact there might be less soldiers and people losing their lives. the sooner the better. however, do not be fooled by the actual victory frenzy, as there will probably be a price to pay for the actual destabilisation. the pressures that the arabic world have endured for the last 40 years are bringing up new generations of integrists fighters ready to die for a religious cause. the moderate islamic population is slowly adopting extremist theories, convinced by the fact nothing positive will come up in the years to come. convinced by the fact we, occidentals, are deliberately trying to go back to the crusade era, against the broken muslim world.
the more we will evolve into our ideas of freedom justice and technologies, the more integrists will grow and fight occidental theories they never had the chance to grab and live with.
we will have enormous difficulties fighting against extremism, and helping the moderate muslim world against its own fundamentalism. in a way, the way this conflict has been handled is raising the confrontation between both civilisations, rasing tension and anger.
the actual war is consolidating the american domination on the middle east, and we should logically be happy about it. but the whole thing seems wrong... as the arabic world, tired of this economic instability, doomed because of the multiple pressures coming from the oil lobbies, simply wants to limit the occidental influence and return to its own search of a possible arabic modernity, free of any occidental colonialism and racist domination. they'll have tremendous difficulties trying to do so, as this war has jeopardized even more their wish to see a final stability appear. the american actual actions could become a dream come true for many, but i doubt it will bring anything else than extremism and anger to a majority of muslims whose respect and honor have been broken to pieces for decades.

[otis]

Well put Sparth. I could not agree with you more.. Now you are the type of person I' could see myself having a rational conversation with!

I agree that the wonderfull arab people have been lied and cheated for decades by their own leaders. They are so depressed that their leaders have them believing that it's all the Jews and American's fault. Hopefully this action of removing Saddam will send a message to the Arab people, that they don't have to live under such midevil and opressive regeims and gov'ts. That country's oil money should be going to it's people, not Saddams palaces!!

I think that the Suadi Princes and kings already know this. I 'm hoping that their gov't will allow a change similar to the way England had theirs. :nod:

[otis]

Cucaracha,

Thanks for the bit of German history,...It's kind of amazing how sly the Nazi party was in gaining political control back then. I totaly agree with you about being carefull with nationalism.

[Clodhopper]

I think "releived" was a good way to put it, Sparth....right up until i yelled at my TV out loud to take the flag off the damn statue's face when i saw them putting it up on live television with the Entire world whatching them. I beleive its cool to celebrate a victory, but I know the entire world sees that and beleives America is taking control of Iraq. That was a pivotal moment in history, that footage will be seen by history classrooms in all countries for decades...but now it has been emblazoned with an outrageous act of American patriotism, showing so much disrespect to other nations. My country is one cocky sonofabitch. don't get my wrong, i love America and I have infinte respect to the flag and would probably set someone on fire if they even mentioned burning a flag. but there was NO CALL for those Marines to display the flag...there will be reprocussions. If America wants to look like a protector of freedom and democracy it needs to learn to display at least some hint of humility.
I'm also glad that it seems the war is ending quickly. I got some satisfaction out of seeing that statue fall and the people throw shit at it. I'm glad something good has come of this war-at least for today. but those 1500 iraqi people celebrating in the square doesn't make the war right. theres a much broader picture goin on. also, theres 5 million people in Bagdhad, only several hundred of them are really welcoming US troops today. we are only seeing the ones that jump in front of cameras with signs and yelling "Bush is good" to the Marines.-and you want to accept their opinion as the concensus? Its far too soon to assume that ALL iraqi people are glad the Americans are doing this. Whats gonna happen next!? damn the suspense!


but I'm glad they at least put the Iraq pre-gulfwar flag up for awhile too, hopefully that will help.

[Clodhopper]

Otis, i think you embody about everything i hate in American ideology. like sparth said. "it is quite hard answering to somebody that cannot accept the negative aspects of its own world and society". arguing with you is like arguing with a child. I'm just astounded by your lack of maturity, or rather your lack of comprehension and empathy to all sides that opose you. Most of my posts in this thread are responses to your arrogant statements about how wrong everyone is but you. and then your rediculas examples of past history that not only are wrong, but also don't support your arguement-whatever the hell it might be. And why would I tell the Iraqi Americans in Michigan anything? if they want my opinion they can come and read my posts in my thread. I'm not going to get their attention unless they voluntarily come here and look for it-like you guys are.

[cucaracha]

Hehe, just watched the news, were good news, eh?

It was very important for the Iraqi people to destroy this Saddam statue together with the US troops I think.

I hope it's over soon (and it will be!)

@Otis
Thanks :chug:

cu

[otis]

Clod,

"it is quite hard answering to somebody that cannot accept the negative aspects of its own world and society"

..uh, who's the one bitching about everything??..
I think he was refering to you. I can accept war, tough decisions, and consequences in life. I've been trying to get you to explain or defend your points, but all you do is blame, bitch, and get angry.

:bash:

[stalecracker]

clodhopper:

Ridiculous

http://dictionary.com


Nice attempt at a smack down, I suppose. I haven't read this whole thread, I am tired of the back and forth bullshit... BUT this one sentence in YOUR post stood out to me...




I'm just astounded by your lack of maturity, or rather your lack of comprehension and empathy to all sides that oppose you.


Guess what> You don't HAVE to comprehend or have empathy for all sides that oppose you. IMAGINE that! I don't understand Hussein, HIS culture (not Iraqi culture) or his reasons for doing the shit he did... and I say fuck him and if you support him... fuck you too.

As far anti-war protestors? I believe you have the right to speak your mind and demonstrate peacefully.
That IS in the constitution.
It's a right.
I would, as our soldiers would and multitudes have, fight to the death to defend that right. If you want to lay down in the road and stop traffic to prove your point? Fuck you. You have NO right to impede the freedom of others. Want to vomit on the ground in protest to the war like they did in San Francisco? Hope you choke on your own vomit and die. I have NO empathy, sympathy or comprehension of dumb ass, bullshit, showing your ass crap like that. The Dixie Chicks said what they said... fine, fine... Martin Sheen tapes his mouth shut and drapes his dumb ass on a cross... fine, fine... I think they are frikkin MORONS and I won't buy their shit anymore, listen to their songs or watch their shows. That's MY right.
I respect where Otis is coming from. He's not falling victim to the "War is always wrong" shit. War is ALWAYS horrible... IT IS NOT ALWAYS WRONG. VIOLENCE should never BE the answer... it sometimes is the ONLY answer.

Want some examples?

Ask me?

[otis]

Exactly Stalecracker. Soby that Clod, why don't you have "empathy " for my opinion?? why don't you have empathy for Saddam??? You must have empathy for everyone then, right?You are talking out of both sides of your mouth...hell I don't even need to say anything..you just keep making less sense everytime you post.:D

[Clodhopper]

Stalecracker...why are you posting in my thread if you hate it when people post opinions or raise questions? yer right, there was a flaw in my wording. but if you could "comprehend" the context, you'd see that I saying that Otis doesn't aknowledge the views and reasons of others-becuase he is so blindingly right all the time. Damn anyone for oposing him...anyway, yer entire post was antagonistic, so get the fuck out of my thread. don't come back til you have an opinion of value to contibute.

i fail to see how you can take all the people who opose this war and put them in one catagory and say. "what the hell is wrong with ALL of you! yer blocking traffic and vomiting in Frisco!" well, the spectrum of objection is a little broader than that. c'mon, how old are you? how can you fail to understand a situation so badly and make presumptions like that?

[Clodhopper]

Otis, you don't make the slightest effort to empathize. In a debate its neccesary to try and understand the other persons point of view, at least try. but you don't. I see logic in what you are trying to say-sometimes. I make an attempt to empathize-I wish it was as simple as you make the situation out to be. war is neccesarry, Saddam is incredibly dangerous to world becuase he is going to use WofMD, so we rush in and defeat him, then all of Iraq is free and happy. and America is the only nation with the balls to do what is right, so fuck the UN. does that roughly sum it up? but dammit Otis, there is so much more to it than that and so I bring up questions that you can't answer suffiently. furthermore, you go agreeing with Sparth, and that script-which are largely antiwar. yet I'm a psycho for saying the war isn't right? Its you that is talking out both sides of yer mouth...so I don't know where the hell you stand right now. I have alot of the same opinions, but i rip on the president and America's actions so you get mad.

I still think Sparth was reffering to you with that quote, ...maybe he'll clear it up.

[stalecracker]

clodhopper, I'm 37. You need to read what I wrote again and then read your response to it. Note the immediate jumping on my back you are doing. Unless you want to explain to me how you support Hussein, the "fuck you's" don't belong to you. You obviously see the need for Hussein to be neutralized... you say this war is not "right". HOW would you think we could A) insure that a multi BILLIONARE despot ruler wouldn't decide to fund weapons programs to benefit terrorist groups, B) Set the wheels in motion for a democratic society where that same ruler has and WILL rape and kill you and yours for even discussing change and C) eliminate THE key destabilizing force in that region?

ALSO- N. Korea?!? Gimme a damn break. The N.Korean leader is a freak of nature who wants to rule the world. China (too close for their own comfort) sure as hell won't have any of that. Iran, we could blink and take out Iran. They are nothing. Hell, the Supreme Leader Khomeini hates Iraq and they couldn't do anything against them. Iraq has/had the largest most up-to-date military in the region (next to Israel) and, well, you saw where that got them.

[otis]

Stalecracker, , Clod hopper has not answered one question or dilema. He just criticizes it, and believes that Bush failed, yet he can't even propose a solution.
See, Clod, I agree with our actions, and you summed up the basic parts of it. But either I am completely misunderstanding your issues, or your issues have no solution.
Ex: you are really upset about people dying in this war. Well here's your answer: That is life! People will die in wars becasue actions are not resolved over a game of chess, or paperwork.(although I always thought that it would be great if we could throw like some kind of olympics instead of war to resolve disputes).

Ex:War is always the LAST resort. What else do you do when you have evil dictators next door ready to take over your country? Sit back and kiss their ass? Well that's what France did, and look what that got them. And yes, I said evil. I know you don't like to "judge" but instead "empathize". Well, if this is your philsophy in life you are going to get your ass ran over and kicked by the "evil" jerks out there who will only TAKE ADVANTAGE of this way of thinking. But if you think you can negotiate, bargain, or befriend a person out to kill you..then good luck, because you can't appease them. It's like doing nothing in fear of being terroized again. You are so afraid that our actions are going to make some big ass Jihaad rise up and planes will be fying into buildings everyday. Wake up! People don't want to Jihaad. you think muslims are going to listen to that freak Binladen who is fucking in hiding? Why the fuck wont he strap a bomb to his back??? Majority of people are not that stupid...I mean look at the Iraqi Republican guard! Where are they??? They wont fight for Saddam.

Look, lets make these messages more civil, i appreciate any effort you are making ....so how about this...

You or I post ONE question or fear we have about the war. then people will answer or respond with facts, suggestions, solutions. I've been trying this, but you keep thinking I'm some sort of idiot who is not open to solutions. I am , but nobody has posted them!!! And I mean, if your answer is like we need to negotiate longer with Saddam, then explain about what, and how. And if you don't know then you loose the debate. This is how Plato, Socrates, and great philosphers and debaters solved problems. Debate is a game. there are always winners and loosers, that's the only way to resolve issues in life somtimes.

[Clodhopper]

well, most of this I've said before. but I like yer proposition. and keeping it civil sounds good too. but, I will present an arguemnt but i need more than "one question or fear" so here is my argument, as clear as i know how to make it.

my agreement: Saddam has to go, he is "evil". military action IS neccessary. An effort Has been made to avoid war-but not enough. like you said, war should be a last resort.

My disagreement: well America was FAR from a last resort situation. Saddam is not a clear and present threat to any country at the time war was declared on him, and with the world whatching- it woulda been pretty damn hard to compile his army and more weapons to become a greater threat-also he would incriminate himself in the eyes of the UN/world. and there is still no evidence of wofmd.

So heres my question(s):
Why couldn't America have compiled SOLID evidence that Iraq has WofMD? would that have been so hard? if there was real evidence. then why wasn't it broadcasted all over CNN- to the people and to the UN? Bush or Powell said the phrase "we have undeniable evidence that Iraq has WofMD" and so that was enough to go to war over?

The argument: look, there simply isn't enough proof for Bush to start a war. The whole world has been whatching Iraq, countless satalite survalaince, possibly recon missions? the surrounding countries want to incriminate Saddam as well, but none of them have evidence either. Saddam even allowed the UN inspectors in for several months-so he did cooperate, at least a little. and not one scrap of solid evidence has come of any of it. doesn't that sound pretty damn hollow to you? UN was not convinced, and neither was I or many american people. so before one shot was fired at Iraq the proof should have been presented.and to top it off, even AFTER war was declared, there was a full scale invasion into the country by Britain and America for at least 21 days and they found NOTHING. now, if you can find me some solid evidence that Saddam has WofMD then you better call CNN cuase you would have dound something that the media couldn't, or they just didn't find it credible enough.
did i support my argument and back up my points?

but i suppose time will tell, and I truely hope that we find the Smoking gun. and then you can say the biggest "I told you so" -but my bottom line remains! ;)

and of course people die in war and thats life, that isn't news to me. but I'm angry about the war so I'm more angry about those deaths than i would be if i agreed with the war, make sense?

Bottom line: Bush mishandled the situation by declaring war under unjust terms and the cost was higher than it should have been becuase of his shortcomings. lets never allow the US government to lead a war in this manor ever again. agreed?

i wish there was a patriotic emoticon to put here...

[Clodhopper]

:bash: yea Stale...okay. that A,B and C thing you said- i agree with it. But what is so hard to understand about my position?.... you think that just becuase I'm "antiwar" means A) that I support Saddam!? B) that all violence is wrong and C) that I am a misinformed idiot who blocks traffic. yer way off base dude, hard to beleive yer 37...

Unless you want to explain to me how you support Hussein, the "fuck you's" don't belong to you I DO NOT SUPPORT SADDAM HUSSEIN...so fuck you.

I'll ask you once, don't infringe on my threads anymore. your posts are the worst kind of bullshit, they serve no purpose except negative ones. if you hate antiwar protestors thats fine, whatever. but don't attack me for being antiwar, and don't bust into my thread and start with the "fuck you"s. people blocking traffic and abusing thier right to freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with me. and i dispise anyone who thinks that becuase we can "blink" and whipe out Iran becuase we have a stronger military and they are oposing us...people like you should not be aloud to buy guns. you obviously have a very sick interpretation of right and wrong and it depresses me to have to share my great nation with you. so whatch yer mouth old man. I'm 19 and I'm gonna say this to you: grow up and stay the hell away from me.

[otis]

Believe it or not I kind of agree with you on your first statement.
"Saddam is not a clear and present threat to any country at the time war was declared on him, and with the world whatching- it woulda been pretty damn hard to compile his army and more weapons to become a greater threat"

Here is my reply to the evidence question:

It is a fact that the U.N. and the world knows that Iraq was producing Chemical and biological weapons for years. Now this is a violation of the Geneva Convention and U.N. So for over 14 years the U.N. has been writting resolution after resolution insisting Iraq to stop. But for 14 years Saddam refused. Look it's one thing to own these things, but it's a whole new thing to use them..which he has. Now if you think he randomly stopped making these weapons and just forgot to tell the U.N. to relax, i think not. O.k, well how far can he fire these weapons the U.N. asks? Well according to Saddam, only 40 km. oops!! what has been hitting Kuwait???
This war has proven how much Saddam lied to the U.N. He has missles that can hit neighboring countries, he has chem/bio weapons proved by the U.N. Now why the U.N. insisted on sending inspectors in is our way of trying to be civil with an uncivil dictator. Our satalites proved he was moving weapons hours before inspectors arived at the plants.
Hanz even stated many many times that Iraq has failed to cooperate and that tons of chems were unaccounted for....
I could go on and on, but you can just watch re-runs of this whole fiasco on t.v. Now maybe you were not folowing these reports as closely as i was, but I was scared about going to war too just like you. But after listening to Hanz's reports, and watching hours of U.N. council meetings while I was working from home, I learnied A LOT.

Now the ONLY reason the U.N. could not technically approve of going to war was because France and Germany (who hold veto powers) refused to go along. It was a close vote! Now if you think it's impossible to get 90 senators to agree on a bill,, how hard do you think it is to get a group of nations to agree??? Well at least they ALL agreed on 1441. Now 1441 was supposed to be the last straw for Iraq. It CLEARLY stated that if Saddam did not comply with the U.N. "drastic actions could take place". But to France's, and Germany's surprise, Saddam STILL refused to go along. Instead , Irag would 2 weeks later comply with a 1% effort. if you think 1% is the same thing as 100% then you completely make the U.N. resolutions meaningless. Saddam was testing how far he could go.., just like kids test adults. Now, if the U.N. is going to amount to anything , it HAS to back up it's own resolutions. That is what the U.S. is doing. in my opinion, the WE are the U.N. We do all it's dirty work,. The U.N.'s has no military, it's muscle is the U.S.
I could go on and on, but I don't have all the exact dates and details on the top of my head, but if you want to look up how these pre-war events played out i'm sure somone knows a good link.

As for the "smoking gun": Do you think Saddam was going to let the inspector find his weapons lined up all nicley ready to fire after declaring he had none? Naysayers are always going to say we planted them, so what is the smoking gun? I think the real smoking gun is an act of using these weapons. which he has already done in the past, but I guess people want him to use them today to be convinced.

I totaly agree on understand how you feel about the deaths. I even feel bad when Iraqi soldiers die for a lame cause. We both agree here.

Clod, for along time I wanted our country to stay out of foreign affairs in the middle east. But after 911, that region brought the war to us. The middle east has been a sesspit lost in time, that nobody has wanted to deal with. I guess now we have to deal with it.

[silent Insanity]

How about these pictures, guess who caused them. Hint not the U.S.. WARNING Following pictures are grafic, dont look if your sensitive.


culver.org/theacademies/laptop/cernyj/Teacher_files/english3%20research/Jay%20Dawg's%20bling%20blingin%20website/myweb3/iraq%20pictures.htm

[tyboogie]

ive been reading all the war threads since they started---i agree with you CLODHOPPER--

Otis and stalecracker remind me of Conceptarts equivelant of the american media. As soon as you even raise a question, topic, or idea that may go against what our Gov is doing your immediately deemed unpatriotic. its like you guys are representing the conservative-religious-right ( and its a little strange to be quite franky)

--if we dont constantly question our govt.s motives and actions then we may lose all control--and being that americans are very seperated from international affairs and politics in general--and not the Most educated landmass on this blue rock ( hell even the protesters are not educated--imagine all the people in this country who dont give a shit)--one could argue that we dont have anywhere near as much control, freedom, democracy as we think we do. Now i was born in america, and will die in AMerica--and if i was ever called on to truly defend this countries freedoms and rights i would do so. But if you guys think that were over in iraq because we're these liberating superheroes then your incredibly naive. This situation is very complicated and there are alot of good and bad things that will result from it---not the least anti-american sentiments.

now!!! who wants some pudding!!!????

[tyboogie]

i could find pics from american events that could sway an international person to believe our govt. was out of control and our leaders HAVE got to go--but thanks for the propoganda all the same!!!

[stalecracker]

What I have noticed is this...

If a large amount of people who disagree with the war and speak their mind, LOSE their mind when you oppose their views and fall back on the Good Ole First Amendment as if the first amendment gurentees you the right to speak out without being challenged. The First Amendment guarentees you the right to speak out against the government without fear of reprissal from the Government.

I have also noticed that a large majority of Pro War people believe that you should blindly follow the Government into that dark night. Without reservation.

I am "Pro War" in this instance, as I was in the first Gulf War... I was against the Actrions in SOmalia but supported our troops and our leader while we were there. I believe Clinton screwed that situation up.

I have no problem with people voicing their opinion. I do have a problem with ignorance... when I am guilty of it I strive to educate myself.

AND finally clodhopper- learn to READ what is written. If you'd like for me to PM you and explain EXACTLY what my paragraph you took SO out of context MEANT then I will. BUT I don't know who you think you're talking to with the "Old Man" comment but trust me... I'm not him. I'll watch my mouth YOU watch your ass. Sonny...

AND by the way... I'll post in "your thread" any GOD DAMN time I want to until I grow bored or am banned. It is a PUBLIC forum... you do NOT own it.

[Clodhopper]

Otis, if we were in a bar; I'd buy you a drink. no hard feelings and that was a well conducted post...I see your arguement, but i still have my position. But I'm satisfied, I got to see the otherside of my arguement so I have a better overall understanding of the situation so I have acheived what I set out to do. btw, did you notice that right now we have exactly the same number of posts?
so I'm not trying to nit pick, or drag this out.
but I still think that bush mishandled it...it should not be up to the US to do the "dirty work" while the UN can't pull itself together...put the UN together first then when the world stands united. Put bombs up Saddam's ass and hash out the bullshit in the middle east. I feel we have further distanced ourselves from the UN this way. Maybe made the Iraqi situation better; but made the UN situation worse. so the cost was too great/ and is still getting greater. -and these are just opinions, I don't have any facts for you.

heh as for how to solve the UN...I don't know, thats why I'm not president, but if i were I would kinda like to see US place sanctions on France and Germany. it would never happen- but that would definately help encourage them into playing as a team with the UN...I hate Volkswagons anyway.

on a new subject. How should America help place a government in Iraq? are you concerned that the US will have too much control and they will infringe on the "freedom" of the people? cuase i really don't see them trying to form a structure of government based solely on America's govt- but America will insist they do. at least thats my fear. the Iraqi situation isn't over and neither is this conversation!

[otis]

Cheers! I'm having a beer and one for you right now. :chug:

This U.N. fiasco has happened before. It was called the League of Nations, set up after WW1. But it failed to stop Hitler or the Imperialistsc Japanese. While Hitler kept annexing europe, and Japan invaded Manchuria and the south pacific, the Leag of Nations just sat on their hands and squabled. The U.N. today is guildty of the same thing. they failed in Cosovo, they failed in somalia, they failed, in the Congo, and they failed with Iraq.
The U.N. /League of Nations is a nice concept, but it keeps failing the world community. Mainly because of politics. I hate politics. And the fear of taking action.

Can you imagine how many lives would've been saved if we had entered WW2 earlier?? We came in so late that England almost was invaded by Hitler. that's why we are removing Saddam now, and not later. the longer you wait, the more he will ignor the world and the stronger he will get.

As for Iraq's new gov't. Obviously we don't expect them to set up a congress, or system that we have. It's obvious that Democracy takes time. Heck, our country is still learning it! Let alone the rest of the world. I do worry about the poeple who take control. I mean they have 3 different tribes in that country who have a history of not getting along. Hopefully humankind will mature and prevail over there,... but time will only tell. Don't worry about us forcing anything upon them, we rebuilt Japan and introduced their culture to Democracy and look at them now. :)

[otis]

Tyboogie,??Religious right? Deeming you unpatriotic?? What?

Hey I never said to stop questioning your gov't. But you better follow the facts close, because when facts get ignored or forgotten, someone can run around screaming flasehoods enough, people will believe it.
I only get my answers from live briefings, national adress's and interviews. At least in these forums, the person is being held to their word. News agencies can twist, cut up, quotes and comments like there is no tommorw. Those CNN blurps at the bottom are THE WORST! So basically i don't watch the news. I only try to catch Live interviews and briefings. I definatly don't trust stories in news papers, journalists are the worst when it comes to politics. I wish the news just reported the facts, instead of putting their own comments/opinion on it. It's amazing if you compare the way news is reported today to the way it was reported 50 years ago....but that's another thread...

[sparth]

first of all, i think you mates shouldn't get nervous in your vocabulary and feelings, as violence reveals the true nature of you peeps, and it is not a beautiful thing to observe.

here's my point of view: i think clodhopper and tyboogie have raised a valuable number of question, but unfortunately nobody took the time to give answers. true, it is the sound of an inner revolt and self questioning, a sound hard to accept and comprehend, as it tickles our inner sense of patriotism and attachment to a flag and values that we defend. and seeing the number of posts and self defense some of you pro war have developed, i'm indeed quite certain that none of you are ready to accept comments that would alter your vision of america, and its actual supremacy on the world.
you see, some will probably never understand these feelings of revolt and inequity that may lurk into the middle east.
understand the extreme complexity and mixed feeling of nations that have been humiliated by the US and its allies.
understand that there's more in the middle east than oil and "peasants" raising guns and burning flags.
i don't asks for a global adoption of theories belonging to another culture, but to realize that there may be credible point of view far away from the reborn neo-patriotic-conservative US attiutude.
stale is talking about ignorance. but what ignorance are we talking about? the coin is two sided. ignorance of the middle east and its fragile structure is the most striking fact within this conflict.
now, the arabic world would make a mistake by blaming occident for all its dramatic actions and poverty, or the presence of dictatorial systems on its soil, but we surely have a lot to analyse within our west politics, as it is far from being something honest and clean.

otis, the UN did not fail, the un organisation is having difficult times because the american hegemony on its structure prevents it from being fair towards the world. it is a greatest irony as it is because of america that the un had been able to work properly and force justice to the world, "its muscle is the U.S" as you stated.
but some must understand that a country cannot be a judge and a policeman at the same time, as it will primarily defend its interests. it is now safer for the american administration to lower the UN influence, as it is not defending its interests throughout the world as it was in the past. new spheres of influence are growing around the world, suddenly disturbing the US in their economic plans, altering a long supremacy and culture that most allied countries have approved for years. this war comes from this plan, a plan to remain in power for years to come, spread the word of wealthy economy to people that may not be ready to accept it.

i really believe that no links can possibly be done between ww2 and the actual situation. the world situation during the second conflict urged the americans to enter into the war, and save europe and asia from dictatorial systems. it had to happen, as even america was being threatened by an old continent which was heading towards the wrong political direction.
today, it is different. the terrible injustice coming from the israelian palestinian conflict prevents the arabic world to see us as balanced and fair towards the arabic world.
in other words, we will be balanced and fair in the middle east when we will have understood that the most important wish of this civilisation was to be recognized and respected the same way we respect ourselves in our modern nations.

but it is not close to happen i'm afraid.

[Lono]

:clapping1

-Lono

[otis]

Isn't that what we are trying to do, or start over there by removing Saddam? Dont' we want the Iraqi people to start their own gov't, so that we can work together and communicate better in the future? I agree, the Arab people have been abused and misrepresented by Princes, kings and dictators for too long. They have been brainwashed to think that all their problems are due to the Jews and Americans.
when in fact it's their terrible, selfish leaders using money to build palaces, giving false information so that they can continue to live like kings.

So, if the U.N. did not fail, how is it supposed to work properly, or ever enforce anything? Or should it represent somthing else? What kind of role should the U.N. play? How can you ever be "fair"? And I don't know when the U.N. ever favored american interests. If you could give me some examples I'd appreciate it.

Fair and balanced with the Isreali conflict? What is supposed to fair and balanced? Isreal never asked for this fight. the minute the U.N. and the rest of the world gave Isreal to the Jews after WW2 the shit hit the fan in the middle east. Don't you even remmembr the 6 day war??? Isreal didn't provoke that war, Egypt and Syria did! And they got their ass kicked for it!
Now after a couple of decades of recieving consitant shit from Palastine, Egypt, Syria, ...Isreal is fed up. You think that these Arab countries wouldv'e tried to live peacfully eventually. But with their stupid ass kings and Mullas keeping their people poor, uneducated and angry for all the wrong reasons, this shit will continue.

So what do you think could resolve these problems? I can only think of removing these false leaders and rebuilding the Arab nations. But that seems impossible and dangerous. But I do have faith in the majority of normal and intelligent Arab people. Because there is one thing I have learned about poeple all around the world: They are generally good.
Eventually the truth will prevail, just like it is starting in Iraq. hopefully the Iraqi people will be able to show their neighbors how it can be done.

O.k, you all can start bashing me now.:bash:

[Clodhopper]

The arabs see America as unbalanced becuase they favor Isreal so strongly and don't support the arab nations at all. Isreal would be nothing without all of Americas support. the 6 day war was founght with American weapons that were given to them. The palastinians are a sad story, and I'm gonna heat another debate--it is my opinion that they have been HORRIBLY mispresented to the american public. What Sheron is doing is genocide. have you read about Jenin at all? The palastinians have been driven from there homes, there towns have been bulldozed. when they fight back, they are attacked by fucking helicopters, with rockets and get sluaghtered. have you ever heard of Isreally soldiers getting killed by tank fir? no, they get beaten to death by sticks from angry mobs. Then Isrealy helicopters and tanks blow up their police stations. they have no military, so Arafat was cuaght bringing in weapons, they called him a war monger and imprisoned him in his palace and parked tanks all around it. Arafat was just trying to protect the rights of his people I beleive, the right to have a military should be respected. So they really have no choice but to attack with suicide bombings...how else can they fight when they have lost everything? so they are called "crazed" and unreasonable...Its the palastinian situation that Isreal has broken all those UN resolutions when they are pilliging a culture. they stand no chance against Isreal-who have all teh support in the world from the US. no one supports their actions against palastine except America. why is America so supportive of Isreal? we send more aid money to Isreal than any other country in the world. They don't need it as bad as other countries! it makes no sense to me!! someone explain it me please.

that is why Arabs hate US.

[otis]

Well, Clod, I wouldn't call myself an expert in this field, but this is what I understand: (i could be wrong)

First off Arafat looks as bad as Sheron to me.

Jews come out of WW2 and world wants to give them their own nation so that they can not just protect themselves, but to give them a home. But this is what I don't get: So we kick out the Palastineans from Isreal and let the Jews move in?

Now the whole Arab world hate the new Isreal and the U.N. (the USA) helps Isreal protect itself with military aid and money. But here is another twist: Isreal is full of people from all religions and backgrounds..not just Jews. And these Isrealies live in peace together. 6 day war comes along and fails...

For a period there is relative peace..until Arafat takes power and starts up shit again. Years of small squables take place until Arafat encourages suicide bombings. Now things get ugly, but effective. The world starts to take notice. Peace talks fail, and fail, and fail.

this is where my history gets bad.....

Arafat gets Nobel Peace Prize ????For what???? Hijackers hijack planes, ,,,help what the hell is happening over there???:confused:

[Clodhopper]

about the nobel peace thing...I'm not real clear on that peace of history-but Yasser Arafat won it in 1994 for the peace agreement that he hammered out with two guys from isreal. Rabin-the prime minister of Isreal and the foreign minister too. For a period there is relative peace So that was the peace time. -but then the whole situation went to hell as soon as Sheron went into power. thats when the peace was broken-by Sheron dammit!! then began the period when the palastinians were either being driven from their homes or forced into unfare living conditions-with curfews and whatnot. I read an article about Jenin, which was like a sort of camp that Isreal had the palastinians confined to. there were curfews and palastians were shot by the IDF for rediculas reasons...but that was an article and it was very anti isreal and all "humanitarian" so the credibility may be shot to hell. but still, the palastians were stomped on by Isreal. so arafat sees the destruction of his people-cities bulldozed-attacked by helicopters...so the people try and rise up against them, but all they can do is throw stones and maybe set off a suicide bomb. So you may call it a time of peace, but when Arafat "starts shit up again" i beleive he was only trying to reclaim the rights of his people-and perhapse regain a small scrap of pride and dignity for them too. but they left him no choice...he didn't "encourage" suicide bombings, palastinians were just doing them becuase they are so desperate and so Isreal pins that shit on him.
I remember reading in the paper about how the palastian "mobs" savagely beat 2 Isreali soldiers to death with stones. "we must retalliate against such violence" so then I read about how they retaliated by firing rockets from a helicopter into the Palastinian police station. so what was the palastinian body count? it doesn't say...also i recall when a convoy of palastinian leaders was blown up. and Arafat's "headquarters" was bombed and partially bulldozed...I really don' think Arafat and Sheron are on the same level.

the following was copied from the amnesty international website.:
Israeli Defence Force War Crimes Must Be Investigated

Jerusalem -- at the launch of a report into the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Jenin and Nablus in March and April 2002, Amnesty International said today that there is clear evidence that some of the acts committed by the IDF during Operation Defensive Shield were war crimes.
4 November 2002
IDF stands for Isreali defense forces. DEFENSE?! are you kidding? they commited war crimes.

so anyway, my take is that Isreal is so fucking inhuman-yet American gives them weapons and bulldozers which they use to opress, destroy and sluaghter the palastinians. no wonder Arab world hates America

[weapon82]

OMGWTFROFLKTHXBYE:eek: According to the Internet art forums the front runners of the leaders of the free world are in fact put here on earth to screw the entire world ten times over.

Grab yer shovels, I'm digging a hole to live in. :rolleyes:

[Clodhopper]

in other news this evening...
I whatched CNN and then i whatched MSNBC...there are two completely diforent stories about that Shiite claric that got killed. CNN says he was in an argument with another claric-and the guy stabbed him in a confrontation becuase he was supporting America...MSNBC claims that a mob of Iraqi peole stormed the mosque, dragged the guy out and hacked him up-and it was unclear why. which is it goddamit?!!! those are some very difforent stories. I HAVE NO FAITH in media anymore.

[otis]

lol! i hear you Clodhopper! i bet both accounts are somewhat wrong. They just want to get a better story or subtly push their own opinion.

[Clodhopper]

dammit you guys, i got all caught up in reading about the Isreal/palastine thing...and I'm so pissed I can't sleep. ignorance is bliss, knowledge has brought me fear and anger.

anyway. Amnesty international is has all this information but I realize that they also bare their own interests in mind...but theres gotta be at least some truth behind it. and why has that truth not come out to the American people?

Amnesty international-articles about Isreal/palastine (http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index2.html)

"In the period from 29 September 2000 to the end of August 2002, some 1700 Palestinians, including more than 250 children, were killed, and more than 580 Israelis, most of them civilians and including 72 children, were killed.(2)
30 September 2002"

-hmm, more than 3 times as many palastinian deaths than Isreal deaths.

if any of the information in that link is true... WHO THE HELL WOULD STILL SUPPORT ISREAL? AND WHY DOES AMERICA STILL SUPPORT THEM!?
damn I'm pissed.

[otis]

Clod,
just keep diggin deeper, and write a congress man or somthing. Do somthing so you can sleep at night.

[silent Insanity]

This is how Israel explains the death count.
.here (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/article/Default.asp?CatID=1&ArticleID=117)
Exploiting children section.
Genocide? If Israel wanted genocide youd know it. Numbers and reporting can be misleading more investigation should be done before taking sides. Think what would happen if the positions were switched, do you think Palistinians would be as bad as Israelis? Also do you think the Israelis would be as bad is the Palistinians?
Even though it may seem that im taking Israels side, I am not

[sparth]

first of all, i was wandering around these permanent french and english speaking news channels, looking at statues going down...
i really have to admit that even though i do not like this rumsfeld cheney bush and rice conservative clan, as they don't represent the exact values i'm okay with, they managed to put a dictator down in 15 days, regardless of the near future. this event itself is a success and a relief, no matter the possible occupation process, and future political situation.
imense shame on the unconscious occidentals who hoped saddam would win a war against the coalition. a very disturbing feeling into my heart, once again, as it also happened in france, where a small minority of people expressed their wish to see the coalition fail. even though it is a fact the arabic french population may have weighted big on this poll, still it is not an excuse, as democracy should always prevail, especially between allies, and populations within countries that have accepted values of liberty should always do the right choice.

otis. the un do not favor american interests, it is the disguised incarnation of american interests, which is not the same thing. it is the logical result of the post ww2 era, where the winners had the advantage of forcing rules for their own conveniency. veto power representing one among several advantages.
however, it should not be considered as a bad mix, as it is a real fact that USA is doing its best on many matters and subjects. in no way it is an argument to blame america for all the world problems, and nobody must forget the past, where the american presence was central and vital in the healing of the tensions. it is just a question of respecting the balance by smartly putting in position its own political weight and power. on this last point, bush has failed like no american president had failed with its allies in the past. bringing the debate all the way to a divorce, a situation in which the american media blamed france for having deliberately closed negotiations.
unlike in the states, the ten years iraqi embargo has been considered by european as something useless and criminal, as it has plunged iraqi population in a dramatic regression we should have been ashamed of. a situation in which the "blame it on saddam" argument remains worthless. you cannot ask the european opinion to have the same focus on WOMD, as this matter has been "forced" on american minds, by a constant use of alert warnings and unjustified fear of a a nationalist laic country whose links with fundamentalists have yet to be proven. the dictatorial iraqi baath system was a thread to its population, not to the us. also, europeans still haven't understood the trauma caused on spet11 on the american population. for all these matters, the communication within allies between themselves, as well as america and the world, was complex and tense.

but be sure that this conflict gave a signal to the US that they went too far on the road of unilateralism, a position defended by the actual team.
it is not only, as american believe, a conflict of interests, but a call to respect the other nations's will to think different.

you see, USA sharing and spreading its economic theories to the world is something fine that i not only understand but also defend, as it is an attitude built on financial strenght, hard work, and political smartness. but using military means to strenghten an economic situation is something despicable that has to be denounced and condemned. i am absolutely convinced that this war is in a way entering into that second category, hence my refusal of defending such actions.

the american choice to leave the un aside might have terrible consequences. we might, in the near future, see a lot of unfriendly countries use war as an easy access to their own interests, pointing out the US as the first ones having broken the un barrier. turkey has already decided to solve the kurd problem with its own method. north korea as well as "felon states" could be also tempted to remain blind to the fading international justice.

israel: such a complex matter. first of all, it is a clear fact that despite the historical links between hebrews and jerusalem, the creation of israel has been forced by occidentals to arabic countries. countries who had slowly realised they had let a situation degenerate and grow, without control. at first, the jewish state was supposed to be much smaller, a source of problems, as it was vital gaining more space for a decent survival.
george corm, a former lebanese minister has used a very interesting formula in one of his books: he called israel "a spear thown towards the arabic world on which the cutting edge still bleeds everyday" (my translation !!)
in a way, the main hypocrisy occidentals had towards the jews was not an arabic problem. but the fact of chosing that area for this future state was definitely going to get them into a long range conflict. and it did. even until today, where the cycles of violence are still happening, over and over again.
what we forget is that israelians, because of their dramatic past, have now a certain logical violence contained in their contemporean history. they will be ready to fight against any new menace to their own people. for this matter, the communication gap between arabics and israelis is huge,
as the arabic world cannot understand the suffering of population that have been exterminated for centuries. on the other hand, israelis would argue that their own violence could seem rather pale compared to the 6 million souls genocide they have endured. for this reason, the defense of israel is sacred.
there is no real easy solution. israel should consider an alternative to their politic of violence and colony occupation, which humiliates the populations even more, giving arguments for the violence of tomorrow. palestinians should leave terrorism aside, and stop brainwashing their kids with religious ideas telling them that death is just a passage to a better world.
the american support to israel is a direct consequence of ww2.
a period during which the dictatorial europe humiliated and later on, exterminated the jews because of abstract aryan race theories. with israel, the jewish migration to america was another fabulous alternative that a lot of them grabbed with no remorses towards a european and russian land on which they were persecuted.

you can now realise how strong the ties are between israel and the us.
now the palestinian opression is still a terrible matter that has to be solved fast, as it is blocking the us in their search of closer ties with egypt, jordania, saudi arabia, and the rest of the middle east. the arabic humiliation can now be considered as caused by america and israel, which is now a bit different, as a few years ago, the arabic world was mainly considering israel alone responsible for the agression, regardless of the us.

my pov: israel is here to stay, that's a sure fact that arabic countries are beginning to realise. egypt did the first steps quite some years already. (hence sadate's assasination in 81). but israel should definitely consider the international justice that it has left aside for 50 years. as it is an extra argument for the arabic middle east to rush into fundamentalist theories that we will have difficulties to fight altogether in the next years.

[otis]

Tell me if I got you right...do you think that Isreal should just sit tight while the Palastineans keep sending in suicide bombers? Like you said, both of them are commiting international crimes. It's not like these two havn't tried to have peace talks. The peace talks don't seem to work, because from what I heard, Arafat doesn't want to share the land, he wants the Jews completely out of the area. And the PLO will not stop until they take back Isreal.

So, should Isreal and the U.S. give in to Arafats demands, and just pick up and leave? If the U.S stops supporting Isreal, the Jews will eventually run out of munitions and the countries around them will wipe them out like the Nazi's. And we will eventually have to come in and liberate them through war again.

I honestly believe that Isreal is responding to attacks. Now they have a stronger military so the casualties they inflict will be higher, but none the less, they are not just attacking without provocation. If all the suicide bombing, snipings against Jewish civilians stopped, you still think Isreal would be killing Palastineans daily?

Aren't we discussing about making a Palatiniean state? But they still want Isreal instead? why won't they accept a new Palastinean state that the world is willing to give them?

It's a sad situation, but I'm afraid there there is going to have to be a winner and a looser in this situation. Who it will be is beyond me, but I wish I could see another way to end this crap.

[Clodhopper]

so yea. ain't that nice of them to give the Palastinians their owns state...they have been killed and driven from thier homes. They are the ones who are being forced to leave. They have occupied that territory as well as Jeruselam for---a long time, way before WW2 or Isreal ever landed on them. The jews and Muslims lived in relative peace since 94..but Then it was Sharon who decided to take more land, and take Jerusalem all for the jews. Sharon sure as hell looks like a Nazi to me, he is just keeps driving the palastinians further away while taking their land for Isreal and the jews.

Here is how to stop suicide bombings: stop killing the palastinians in mass. do not force them to live under curfews in Nazi style camps [Jenin and nublas]. allow the people to return to their homes and land that they have lived for centuries, do not take anything else from them simply becuase they are muslim not jewish. Then they will have at least a little dignity, a chance...and they will no longer be so desperate as to have to strap bombs to their chests and kill civilians simply becuase it is the most efective way to get back at the horrible injustice that has been done to them. What war crimes has Arafat been blamed for? he doesn't encourage suicide bombings, his palastinians are so pissed that he can't stop them from doing it. when he tried to buy weapons so at least the palastinians could arm themselves and fight back-the world community said "YER A WAR MONGER just trying to create more conflict".

So why can't the palastinians just give up? go live in that "new state" which is out in the desert somewhere or at least far from the garden grove that isreal has become-also far away from their religious icon: Jeruselam.
Seriously, can you blame them for trying to fight? If those were Americans being told..."you have to leave your homes, but we have a new state for you to live in! so stop fighting" would you do it? HELL NO Americans and any other country would fight to the death too.

I don't think it was Arafat that said "all jew have to leave" he had Isreali tanks parked in his front yard-i don't think that was the position he was trying to take. It is Sharon that seems to think "ALL palastinians must go, or be killed" and so he has taken all of jeruselam for Isreal. Arafat made that peace agreement in 94 so that Isreal and Palastine could share jeruselam in the first place. ITS SHARON THAT fucked everything up.

[otis]

Well, if you are right then I agree that's fucked up. But it looks like the Palastineans and Jews have more in common than I knew. Both of them have been driven from their home many times. Since the begining, the Jews have been persecuted and on the run throughout history. What's weird is, that these people CAN live together..it's just (once again) their leaders that fuck everything up. You know that there are people originally from Palastine living peacfully in Isreal, as well as Christians, Muslims,..etc.
If these two leaders are failing so terribly, then maybe the world should take a harder stand against them .. But favoring one side over the other will never work. We cannot expect Sheron and Arafat to get along, maybe we should enforce them both to get along?

[otis]

different topic: Clod, ..I just watched our president hold a press confence live, and he talks like a bumbling idiot. I hope he's not as stupid as he sounds. He wasn't talking about anything that important, but he sure said alot of .."uhs, and ums, and duhs" and answered in incomplete sentences. Dam he looked sooo stupid. Thank god he has a compitent military, and presidential cabinet behind him!