US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 59 of 85 | |
|
|---|
paxx
Reply #1162 Monday, March 31, 2003 11:09 AM
Reply #1162 Monday, March 31, 2003 11:09 AM
Yes, I read that Keila. Iraq say they will turn the desert into a graveyard. Sick. Talk about trying intimidation.
@shu. Wow. Free Press, huh?
@shu. Wow. Free Press, huh?
Xerraire
Reply #1163 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:27 PM
Reply #1163 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:27 PM
NBC is free to hire and fire who they want, yes. It's free.
craeonics
Reply #1164 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:31 PM
Reply #1164 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:31 PM
Iraqi propaganda is somewhat amusing. Boasting about victory, while they know they will get their ass kicked eventually.
Let's hope they won't go take the "we may go down, but we'll take you with us" route.
Let's hope they won't go take the "we may go down, but we'll take you with us" route.
paxx
Reply #1165 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:34 PM
Reply #1165 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:34 PM
Hum, should have said "freedom of speech".
But yeah, it's no secret that there isn't such things really. Most newspapers or tv stations have a general direction and if you work for them, you have to adopt the opinion of your employer.
That's why there are newspapers that are known to be "right" or "left" wing.
But yeah, it's no secret that there isn't such things really. Most newspapers or tv stations have a general direction and if you work for them, you have to adopt the opinion of your employer.
That's why there are newspapers that are known to be "right" or "left" wing.
paxx
Reply #1166 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:36 PM
Reply #1166 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:36 PM
crae: for some reason, I can't help to picture a little Chiouaoua yapping and barking at the Doberman. 
Xerraire
Reply #1167 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:37 PM
Reply #1167 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:37 PM
I don't think NBC are pro-war. I don't even think they personally were offended by his statements. However, they do have an american audience with soldiers in the war, and what Peter Arnet was spouting was plain old 'bad for business' in NBC's opinion. That's my guess.
craeonics
Reply #1168 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:44 PM
Reply #1168 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:44 PM
paxx> Now that you mention it. Yeah, that would seem like an excellent analogy. Small doggies always bark the most.
craeonics
Reply #1169 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:47 PM
Reply #1169 Monday, March 31, 2003 12:47 PM
Speaking of the press, the British government recently complained about the BBC's (British national tv) critical approach to the undertaking. They (goverment) think they (BBC) should show some more support for the Cause and stop being so objective.
Xerraire
Reply #1170 Monday, March 31, 2003 1:00 PM
Reply #1170 Monday, March 31, 2003 1:00 PM
I read just now FOX may get rid of Geraldo for announcing military strategy on the air.
According to what I read, he is being escorted by the military to Kuwait right now
According to what I read, he is being escorted by the military to Kuwait right now
bakerstreet
Reply #1171 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:06 PM
Reply #1171 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:06 PM
Trouble is, no one remembers what the job desciption for 'journalist' really is. In its purest form not only do you not state your own opinions, but you really don't even interprate the facts you relay. You say what happened with the highest degree of accuracy and detail possible. To be fair, I don't think there is one pure news source anywhere now. 'Expose' has taken its place, and such is always biased.
What Peter Arnet did was say openly that the original US war plan was a failure, and we were skipping and fetching to make a new one. He also said that the US people were growing tired of the war, and most didn't want it to begin with. This is what Saddam Hussein is relying upon and predicting, word for word.
ANYTHING that is said that would make the Iraqi people think, "Well, maybe if I just fight for another week before I give up, we'll win." is basically Iraqi propaganda, and a weapon against the Coalition. That's why we took out the TV there as well. They are gonna lose, and the harder they fight, the more of them will die, and the more civilians will be at risk.
****
paxx: if you don't think Hussein is a threat to the world or his neighbors, then you are ignoring 30 years of history. During that time he has purchased weapons grade nuclear material from France, made war on and invaded nations that borders him, paid the families of suicide bombers 10,000 dollars each, lobbed missiles at anyone who offended him, and so on, and so on. When hasn't he been an active threat to someone?
Now that he has such huge grudges to settle, you think he will be nicer? Hardly. He started upgrading his military the *second* the gulf war was over, and there is *no* way to stop him, sanctions or not. What's he upgrading it for? He has seen how the US fights, and what it would take to win a war against them. He has allies that can make-to-order the equipment he needs.
Given the breathing room and the billions of dollars he will get from anti-war Europe and Asia, he can construct a defense that will be very difficult to crack. Than he can do what he wants to whoever he wants, and it will be up to us to either nuke him or let him.
What Peter Arnet did was say openly that the original US war plan was a failure, and we were skipping and fetching to make a new one. He also said that the US people were growing tired of the war, and most didn't want it to begin with. This is what Saddam Hussein is relying upon and predicting, word for word.
ANYTHING that is said that would make the Iraqi people think, "Well, maybe if I just fight for another week before I give up, we'll win." is basically Iraqi propaganda, and a weapon against the Coalition. That's why we took out the TV there as well. They are gonna lose, and the harder they fight, the more of them will die, and the more civilians will be at risk.
****
paxx: if you don't think Hussein is a threat to the world or his neighbors, then you are ignoring 30 years of history. During that time he has purchased weapons grade nuclear material from France, made war on and invaded nations that borders him, paid the families of suicide bombers 10,000 dollars each, lobbed missiles at anyone who offended him, and so on, and so on. When hasn't he been an active threat to someone?
Now that he has such huge grudges to settle, you think he will be nicer? Hardly. He started upgrading his military the *second* the gulf war was over, and there is *no* way to stop him, sanctions or not. What's he upgrading it for? He has seen how the US fights, and what it would take to win a war against them. He has allies that can make-to-order the equipment he needs.
Given the breathing room and the billions of dollars he will get from anti-war Europe and Asia, he can construct a defense that will be very difficult to crack. Than he can do what he wants to whoever he wants, and it will be up to us to either nuke him or let him.
paxx
Reply #1172 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:12 PM
Reply #1172 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:12 PM
Hey, Bakerstreet, your eyes skipped over an important word in my sentence: "I don't believe that he is a threat ANYMORE to anybody else."
I think most of his neighbours (Iran, Syria, Saoudi Arabia) could crush him right now.
I think most of his neighbours (Iran, Syria, Saoudi Arabia) could crush him right now.
Bangkokboy
Reply #1173 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:27 PM
Reply #1173 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:27 PM
about a year after the war is over we'll begin to get an idea who is really happy or unhappy in iraq. a lot of what we observe now is temporary posturing tied to temporary situational stressors. 
paxx
Reply #1174 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:32 PM
Reply #1174 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:32 PM
Hum, agreed.
But, what I fear is that it's not about to be over anytime soon. If - I say IF - Iran and Syria jump in the bandwagon, it could get ugly. And lenghy. And bloody.
Of course, I wish it doesn't happen. I hope I'm just being too much influenced by the apocalyptic scenarios I see and hear on TV. Nevertheless, it remains a possiblity.
But, what I fear is that it's not about to be over anytime soon. If - I say IF - Iran and Syria jump in the bandwagon, it could get ugly. And lenghy. And bloody.
Of course, I wish it doesn't happen. I hope I'm just being too much influenced by the apocalyptic scenarios I see and hear on TV. Nevertheless, it remains a possiblity.
Bangkokboy
Reply #1175 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:58 PM
Reply #1175 Monday, March 31, 2003 3:58 PM
syria supports terrorist organizations, but they keep such a low profile in the public media that it's very hard to guess what they would or wouldn't do. relative to that point, i asked a saudi arabian air force officer i'd worked with for 3 years to rank his enemies. his list:
1. syria
2. iran
3. israel
interesting.
1. syria
2. iran
3. israel
interesting.
joetheblow
Reply #1177 Monday, March 31, 2003 4:21 PM
Reply #1177 Monday, March 31, 2003 4:21 PM
Speaking of Isreal...
what's up with that???
I know Isreal is a democracy and all, but why does the US support it so much anyway?? Especailly when Ariel Sharon is wrong?
what's up with that???
I know Isreal is a democracy and all, but why does the US support it so much anyway?? Especailly when Ariel Sharon is wrong?
Bangkokboy
Reply #1178 Monday, March 31, 2003 6:22 PM
Reply #1178 Monday, March 31, 2003 6:22 PM
jtb - to get a really good answer to that question, it's best to review world history centering around the (re)creation of the state of israel (if you can find a solid, unbiased historian). the allied countries had heard strong rumors about what might be happening to the Jews during the war, but when the allied armies were liberating the concentration camps the shock and horror of what can happen to a people who have no land of their own to be safe in went beyond belief. it was a very emotionally charged issue way back then and that hasn't changed. having helped form an international concensus on the need to create such a state, it's altogether normal to support its continued existence after it's created, even if you have philosophical fights with that state.
i readily admit that i've forgotten most of my detailed history around that turbulent epoch, and will say no more.
i readily admit that i've forgotten most of my detailed history around that turbulent epoch, and will say no more.
joetheblow
Reply #1179 Monday, March 31, 2003 6:33 PM
Reply #1179 Monday, March 31, 2003 6:33 PM
hmmm... I don't question the states existance... I questions some of the current governing actions of Sharon.
He got on my bad side many times after calling a operation a sucess even though 20 Palesinians died and were agnoliged as by standers or innocents. I also wonder about the use of bombs in densly populated areas...
I don't know... just seems like there could be more done.
Speaking of different cultures...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080812/
Thumbs up... in a good way that is.
joetheblow gives the OK sign and realizes that could mean something else too.
He got on my bad side many times after calling a operation a sucess even though 20 Palesinians died and were agnoliged as by standers or innocents. I also wonder about the use of bombs in densly populated areas...
I don't know... just seems like there could be more done.
Speaking of different cultures...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080812/
Thumbs up... in a good way that is.
joetheblow gives the OK sign and realizes that could mean something else too.
bakerstreet
Reply #1180 Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 PM
Reply #1180 Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 PM
I am not anti-semitic, not by a long shot. I do, however, have doubts about the existence of the state of Israel, or at least how they are accomplishing it. I know the US has played a large part, and I don't excuse that. I'm not gonna really go into it here since it is such an emotionally charged topic to so many people, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian people.
Their use of terror to make their case to the world is inexcusable, though, and I in no way feel that the acts are just. Actually, i think very little terror these days has anything to do with Palestinians or religion. Terrorism is a huge business, supporting millions of employees and billions in funds. Once you get an organization that big, the point becomes the organization. That's why Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest will never allow peace in the Middle East. They will murder anyone who could be successful at accomplishing it. Would be bad for business.
Their use of terror to make their case to the world is inexcusable, though, and I in no way feel that the acts are just. Actually, i think very little terror these days has anything to do with Palestinians or religion. Terrorism is a huge business, supporting millions of employees and billions in funds. Once you get an organization that big, the point becomes the organization. That's why Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest will never allow peace in the Middle East. They will murder anyone who could be successful at accomplishing it. Would be bad for business.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 59 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1161 Monday, March 31, 2003 10:50 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20030331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sabri_1