Lexoon: I'm glad you're putting your PhD in political science to work with all that stilted sloganeering. Very biting commentary.
I see a little padlock in this thread's future.
-Exit
Printable View
Lexoon: I'm glad you're putting your PhD in political science to work with all that stilted sloganeering. Very biting commentary.
I see a little padlock in this thread's future.
-Exit
Maelikki,
Major difference is that the World Trade Center is not military based. Had the terrorists targeted just the Pentagon or military bases, while still shocking, you might not have seen it go as deep.
The United States military is NOT targeting civilian areas but, as in all wars, there will be some civilian deaths. Especially when the opposing force has such little regard for human life as to use women and children as human shields.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that most of the footage shown on Iraqi TV was either taken during the 80's with the war against Iran or that they actually targeted their own people for "photo op" reasons to try and sway public opinion.
If you think about it, you'll see that the US government has been pretty good at admitting it's mistakes in regard to errant missles, to a fault. And understand that while there might be injuries during the night, some of those will be because of where the Iraqi's placed the anti-aircraft weapons. Those bullets going UP are going to come DOWN.
In the end, I fear that it really won't matter. Saddam could nuke all of Iraq and the United States will get blamed for it. After all, had we not gone after him, he wouldn't have used it.....right?
I have a question for anyone outside of the US and/or North America....
The US media outlets will take the Armed Forces to task when they screw up, but can the same be said for other news outlets towards the Iraqi regime? Do the non-US news outlets question whether or not Iraq executed US PoW's and/or violate the Geneva Convention in any form or fashion? Or do they avoid it and/or deny that Iraq would do such a thing?
Do they question Iraq's use of human shields?
Do they simple take what the Iraqi Minister of Information says as fact?
The impression I get is that they are more than happy to show US screw-ups but treat the Iraqi's as if they can do no wrong. Just wondering how accurate that is from someone that can see news feeds from various other places.
Forty well of course there is a diff but the thing is in the end mistake or not innocent ppl die. In one case it was intended and thats why the whole community blames those acts in the other case its collateral damage and part of the war.
Am not blaming US for fighting for there beliefs somehow as i told some peeps my opinion is that the US i still a young country that havent faced the fact of beeing occupied by an ennemy military force and therefor are somehow fast at taking the weapons and go shoot around. They also prolly one of the only country atm who can decide to go and settle a problem on there own of course it pisses ppl off but its a strength i cant deny.
I mean whatever you think i feel USA is a heavy weaponed country like there is more weapons in US schools than in the french army (exagerating here but not sure am that far)
I dont hate anyone due to this war i do hold grudge on people going balistic on french peeps using reminders of ww2 to try bring some guilt feelings.
Would be like english ppl going mad at US and calling them tards for not helping em on "name a stupid conflict here" even if britain sent the mayflower there and therefor you owe them the whole country.
Forty> The only echoes am really getting from that war atm are basically all the allied forces screw ups.
And also the iraqi press stuff like we are gonna win and stuff
Of course we are not getting the geneva convention violation and whatever could make irak sound like a country we were meant to attack.
My guess is that that like in most countries the gov has some control on the press and they wont let too much stuff go out that will be against the position they taken
Then you might be interested to read:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82339,00.html
While it might be a US news source it reflects what we see.
It use to be said that a woman and/or religion was behind all conflicts. Now I think it can be revised to read "news media" and religion are behind all conflicts.
/shrug
problem i have with press and medias atm is that since i cant get a grip of whats true fake partly true partly fake i dont really care.
There is no one clean of course there is no black nor white everyone is grey and saddam seems a lot darker than others
The canadian media seems a bit biased against what they see as a facade of righteousness on the part of the american government itself, but they've not denied that any of the things iraq has done (human shields, POW treatment, etc ..) as reported by the troops are fact. They report everything, with a bit of bias against the US, but far more bias against iraq, in that they ignore or mock anything their information minister says. (and rightfully so)
-Exit
Hey.. i only read the first page but the idea that Europeans always talk things over and the Americans are so quick to act has come up a myriad of times.
I have mixed opinions on this. I feel that the "American" way in which we act quickly seems to be more logical. Why would u want to allow someoen to amass a larger army while u "talk" about it. I do think that the US does give into the Europe opinion often times. For istnance, the 12 years that they tried to talk to Iraq.
I believe the europeans have this general attitutde beucase of the many wars that have been fought there. Europes history is littered with wars while america has a few here and there. Europeans, perhaps, are either sick of war or have realized that there is ALWAYS a better alternative. I think the problem with this is that other countries have not realized that. The US seems like it would be willing to alwyas goto talk and bypass war, but some of these dictatorships refuse and even exploit this kindness.
THis is why i support the removal of Saddam. The more countries we can get that support the use of diplomacy rather then military is a good thing!
Also.. i am NOT anti-french. I do think of them as weather friends, but i reguard them indifferent. If you ask any US administrator they will say that the French are with us on 90% of problems, its just on this one they are not.
The idea that the US had it "coming" is bullshit. I absolutley HATE it when people say this. Does the US deserve 2 planes crashing into our symbol of economic growth when we shovel out BILLIONS of dolars to developing countries or loan money konwing we will never get it back? Does the US deserve this travesty when it constantly sends aid when needed? I think the problme with the world is they take for granted the things the US, and other coutnries, do for them. If the US with drew all its international aid it would be widly noticed, but yet no oen seems to care about this. I have never been more perplexed by anything then this idea in my life.
Lenaldo
-just trying ot make clear some things
Forty, to your FOx post i have one comment. Although i am a conservative myself, Fox is, of all the american news companies, the most conservative. They are also the closest to the middle where as the others are generally quite liberal biased. So an article like that from Fox does not surprise me.
la~
What I don't understand is, how can anyone justify NOT removing Saddam with what we know now? Are we supposed to let him murder tens of thousands of innocents? Unless my president is OUTRIGHT LYING to me, I just don't see why our actions are not the most appropriate course. Its such a no-brainer to me.
I havn't seen anything from the protesters to try and convince me that what we are doing is wrong. Dead civillians? How many would die if we DIDN'T take action? This morning the president went up and told the reporters of a story where they tied some dude to a stake in the middle of town, cut out his tongue, and let him bleed to death.
Here's another little tidbit to mull over.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82382,00.html
Still think we're wrong to go in and kick him out?
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.
Plato, Dialogues, Phaedo
Of course foxnews will pull out nasteh stuff about irak what do you expect they gonna show you dead civilians and stuff ? no they will emphasize anything bad done by irak and hide US mistakes as much as they can.
And btw the point is not is it right to go in irak or not ?
Of course war is a solution to a conflict but was it the only one ?
thats basically the dif between europe and US atm to my feelings.
US had a working fast solution (war) and the only question they were asking themself is : is it legitimate ?
On the other side euros knew about the war solution but were asking emself : is there another way ?
Heh, well we are starting to see the same questions and answers all over again. 12 years to disarm, didn't happen. How many sanctions? Saddam certainly doesn't appear to be the kind of guy to quit his bullshit after being asked nicely. We already had trade embargos. Inspections missed plants. How many civilians would die if we delayed further? I mean, seriously, look at the lunitics running the country on TV. Freaking telling their people how they are winning the war. If they gave a shit about thier people, they would be discussing terms of surrender to at least get more of thier way, instead fooling them to fight a battle they have no prayer of winning, just to make us look worse.
And no Vin, I don't expect this post to convince anyone :D
Actually, US news organizations have mentioned some of the civilian deaths and missles / bombs that miss their targets, American television just doesn't show the corpses of Americans or Iraqis.Quote:
Of course foxnews will pull out nasteh stuff about irak what do you expect they gonna show you dead civilians and stuff ? no they will emphasize anything bad done by irak and hide US mistakes as much as they can.
When France promises to VETO any resolution we put up for a vote in the UN? Effectively prevents us from even trying. And besides, after 10+ U.N. sanctions and hardly any cooperation until there were 200,000 troops sitting on Iraqi borders I doubt Saddam plans to say 'Okay, I give up. We lied - here are the TONS of VX, Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and miscellaneous others we didn't have!"Quote:
Of course war is a solution to a conflict but was it the only one?
Plus, 1441 promises extreme consequences to result if all of the conditions within are not met. We didn't even HAVE to go back to the UN and propose a new resolution, but we that wasn't possible anyway because France doesn't like ultimatums! I'm sure Saddam would be disarming fully if there hadn't been a threat of force...
Just want to express my opinions, I don't expect to change anyone elses :p (Hi Vin the Philhossifier! =o)
... basically countries always act in what is perceived to be in their own best interests.
The claim that France came to the aid of the "Colonies" during the American Revolution out of their concern for moral, humanitarian or philosophical reasons is utterly and patently hogwash.
France helped the rebels in the America's purely to serve their own self interest. It was not so much as to "help" the americans as it was to HURT the British. In case people forget historical context, France had gotten thumped within recent memory during the French and Indian war vs. the British and colonists. The French and British were each trying to assert their own imperial interests in the "new world." There was no great love between the French Gov't and the colonials. There was a deep seated hatred for the British however. (The French would again battle the British during the Napoleonic war not all that much later.)
A further case in point took place during the American Civil war. During the early years of the war, the Confederacy was in constant contact with the european powers, France included, to garner support for their war effort. The French remained on the sidelines waiting for indication that the Confederacy had a chance at victory. They dangled hope of French involvement until it became evident that the confederacy was doomed (the British guilty of this as well...). Again, their course steered not by grand philosophical or moral compass, but by simple self interest.
Obviously, the US acted in WWII not to save France in particular, but to further the national security interests of the US. It does not lessen the fact that twice in the 20th century, France owed its very existance to those rude yankee pigs.
France today is only relevant because of their veto power within the UN. Even this is now rapidly fading in importance. The recent events in Iraq have greatly lessened the legitimacy and power of the UN. Essentially, France was called on their bluff to direct international policy toward Iraq. The net effect : France has forced the UN to become as marginalized as themselves.
France is a third rate military and economical power which is utterly and completely irrelevant in the geopolitical landscape. However, they are a proud people. The French, since that pompous fool DeGaule (or however you spell it...) , have made it policy to act as the foil to the US. From their withdrawl at one point from Nato, to their constant arming and commercial dealings with the likes of Libya, Iraq and the like, if it is within the power of the French government to be a thorn in Washington's side, you can bet they will make all effort to do so.
French policy to Iraq is guided by their own economical interests and their interest in seeing the influence of the US in the mid east held in check. Anyone who believes the French (feel free to insert "Germany" "Russia" "China" in there as well...) have a greater moral justification than this is woefully naive.
- Card
I thought that was the USA's job.Quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal
From their ... constant arming and commercial dealings with the likes of Libya, Iraq and the like...
Or "The United States", "The United Kingdom", "Spain", "Jordan", "Turkey", "Qatar", "Saudi Arabia", and virtually anyone else involved.Quote:
feel free to insert "Germany" "Russia" "China" in there as well..
Or anyone NOT involved....