Banging the Gong of War

I say do a little bit of reading. Check some linky-links:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=293162

http://www.polyconomics.com/shownuff.asp?ArticleID=1081 <-- written before Sept. 11 but still relevant.

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/030102/030102u.htm

I will say these are problems with leadership on both sides - but it's obvious where the brunt of it comes from.

It's always good to check various sources of media for information before forming an opinion on serious world issues. I always think to myself, "If I can't trust a run-of-the-mill gaing magazine for accurate, informed game reviews and information, how can I trust commercialized, mass-consumption American 'News Media' about things on a far larger scale?"

Last year the RA of my dorm's floor was a guy of Jewish heritage who had livedin Israel during his childhood and returned every year or so to visit family. Even he said, "The popular US media is so full of misinformation about this conflict, and the people just blindly follow it. I can't believe it!"

 

True about Media here. Everytime I go back home I look at other forms of media and just wonder how the American Media gets away with some of the stuff it shows!! I think a good deal of people here are too busy with life to look into outsider media, for example, and compare.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

[ QUOTE ]
Fishie said:
Sharon who was directly responsible for the current intifada puts the onus completely at Arafat while the situation in Israel has never been as bad as since he took officeIts a sick game.

[/ QUOTE ]
That, I am sorry, is almost an out-right lie.
Arafat, and the arab nations are mostly for the infitada. Hell, Israel offered Arafat control of east Jerusalem and it was Arafat that turned it down.
Israel, for a long time, has been making offers upon offers, yet the Palestinian people continue to use terror as a vehicle for their movement...maybe they would garner more sympathy through more peacefull means of protest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me about those offers upon offers israel made and what exactly those offers wich always were refered to by the US and Israel as GENEROUS.
Please provide some critical links explaining what those offers were.

 

[ QUOTE ]
schadevf4 said:

I don't know how you can call Sharon an accused war criminal and in the same breath call Arafat a good man!! He is a known terrorist, with strong ties to groups who are notorious for suicide bombings, if you ask me Sharon and Arafat will both go to extremes to get what they think is "right". For there to be any stability in that region Israel has to do the right thing and not re-elect Sharon, and the palestinians have to get a leader who will help them become a stable nation, both groups have a right to exist and can, if they can get their leaders to change their mentality. or most likely get new leaders!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Urm, Sharon just got re elected.

 

Ah, a war debate.
<replicant drags in a dead horse>
Have at it fellas!

 

Meanwhile more of Powelss PROOF turns out to be fake:

http://msnbc.com/news/882311.asp?0cv=CA00

DOCUMENTS THAT purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed “not authentic†after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.
ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim  made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday  that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.





• Blix's Iraq report deepens U.N. rift
• From Jordan, taxis shuttle messages of peace and war
• Confronting Iraq special report





“There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities,†ElBaradei said.
Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away  including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

 

Surprising that came from MSNBC, I thought conventional news sources shied away from this sort of ambarrassing and anti-war story.
Not that I'm complaining.

 

Oh, and how about that wonderful press conference? "Mister Burns, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"

Yes, it turns out that Bush really was reading from a prepared list of reporters. The reporters also had their questions cleared in advance, which no doubt helps to explain why Helen Thomas was snubbed for the first time in, well, ever. But, hey, she only covered Presidents since JFK.

And I also read something confirming what I saw that night. When refering to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Bush refered to it as "the IEAE."

Good grief, Junior is bright.

 

Just about everything Powell has said at his UN addres a few weeks ago has been disproven now, Bush Sr used lies and propaganda to get support for his war(the satelite pics wich never existed and the so called quwaiti nurse among others) and now the lies of the current cabinet are exposed even before the war has begun yet it doesnt seem to have any effect on the people and government at large.

 

Bush refuses to speak to the EU unless he is guaranteed a standing ovation:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12713155&method=full&siteid=50143

BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH


Mar 8 2003




By Paul Gilfeather


GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation.

Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome.

A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address.

"His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling.

"I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen."

Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.

It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe.

The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help."

 

Bush Sr may have used lies, but I can tell you that Kuwait couldn't have been liberated without external interferences. We're talking about a country which is about the size of New Jersey, against a giant like Iraq. Of course the US wanted to interfere because of the potential benefits of doing so, but that's a different story.....

What I mean is, maybe the case of the so called nurse you are talking about and other stuff were lies (Which I am not clear on), but that doesn't mean Kuwaiti people weren't suffering during the days of the Iraqi invasion. Some people find it easy to say that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was merely a 'change' in the ruling system. So much for a change, when even schools were used as torture bases in some cases.... I don't need to mention the POWS either.....

 

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Thomas said:

Yes, it turns out that Bush really was reading from a prepared list of reporters. The reporters also had their questions cleared in advance, which no doubt helps to explain why Helen Thomas was snubbed for the first time in, well, ever. But, hey, she only covered Presidents since JFK.



[/ QUOTE ]

The free press is only free in a very limited definition. The fact is that reporters with hard questions are denied access and if you are trying to be a "good" reporter and climb that ladder those are two words you never want to hear or see. soooo you end up with a "free press" that is full of toadying cowards toeing the line but with absolutely no fight in them.

GE

 

[ QUOTE ]
Bu_Jassoom said:

Bush Sr may have used lies, but I can tell you that Kuwait couldn't have been liberated without external interferences. We're talking about a country which is about the size of New Jersey, against a giant like Iraq. Of course the US wanted to interfere because of the potential benefits of doing so, but that's a different story.....

What I mean is, maybe the case of the so called nurse you are talking about and other stuff were lies (Which I am not clear on), but that doesn't mean Kuwaiti people weren't suffering during the days of the Iraqi invasion. Some people find it easy to say that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was merely a 'change' in the ruling system. So much for a change, when even schools were used as torture bases in some cases.... I don't need to mention the POWS either.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not contesting any of those things but regardles of those things the US lacked the moral ground to liberate Quwait in 91 becouse US ambassador for Iraq Glaspie gave Saddam the greenlight to invade(do a search for the transcript of the chat she had with Saddam shortly beore the invasion), the lies spread by Bush and the way the US had been cosying up to Iraq(even going as far as aiding them against Iran and claiming the gas attacks Saddam caried out against Kurds and Irani soldiers were Irans doing).

This administration has even less moral ground to stand on sadly, at least in 90 Iraq had actually invaded a country(disputed land true but invaded nevertheles) but this time we have a cabinet that is guilty of lying and warprofeteering(check Powel and Cheney´s links to Haliburton and Haliburtons actions among others) calling for a war and invoking hatred and fear in the hearts of their own citizens to get public support.

Im not gonna provide anymore links or make anymore political comments in this thread, my stance is clear and I provided enough info for people willing to check the stories I mentioned out for themselves.

And sadly GE I have to agree with you.

 

I am aware of the April Glaspie thing. I only thought that you had some doubts of what really happened in Kuwait. That's why I tried to clear some stuff up. Sorry if that wasn't apparent from my post, and sorry for misunderstanding (That's why I said the US interfered for potential benefits. Also, that's probably why the US never dealt with Saddam back then. Were there benefits in leaving Saddam in power back then? Are there better benefits in taking him out now? ).

The thing between US and Iran isn't new either. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Saddam brought to power by the US right after the Shah was removed from Iran back in 1979?? And a couple of nations, including the US and Kuwait (Sadly), were helping Saddam against Iran in the war. That's why I have some worries that this current thing with Iraq might be just the initial steps towards something similar with Iran. Having military bases in Kuwait, and possibly Iraq in the near future, will make it easier for the US to 'keep an eye' on things in the area there. Only time will tell what's going to happen. I can only hope for the best.

 

Fellas, don't you see that the most powerful nation on earth and the leader of the free world simply must not hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands of people whenever it gets the hankerin' & then come up with catchy names for the slaughter?

I mean, as long as all the people dying are brown I don't see a problem with turning the desert into glass. Surely we'll be able to afford the diamond drill bits & avoid any of those misplaced evil empire statements because, y'know, the Germans were killing dirty jews & we're only killing dirty Arabs & they started it anyway. What goes on in the desert that makes all those people crazy?

Understand though we must go through the proper diplomatic channels before we get to kill them. We know from satellite imagery that the Iraqis have the largest cache of boxcutters in the mideast yet even still the world community, for the most part, refuses to recognize the threat. WHITE PEOPLE COULD DIE! I know, technically the majority of Iraqis are caucasoid, but you wouldn't fucking know it from that desert baked skin of theirs. Any nation without the good sense to find some shade deserves whatever it gets. Me? I'll never get a sunburn cause my grandpa was part of the greatest generation (y'know, the one that had to swallow that big lump in the throat & kill white people) so I'm draped in the red, white & blue. USA! GO TEAM!

 

Sanjuro, your point is well taken, but in the future try to show some class when stating your opinion. Mocking WWII vets Totally distasteful! /versus/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

Yeah, and so is mocking those that died on Sept 11 with the boxcutter comment. I gave out all my fucks already, sorry. Think about it though...isn't it at least as distasteful to go kill a bunch of people and be proclaimed great by a television personality as your days come to a close? Wanna know who I respect? I respect the boys who were reaching 16 in 1945 & kept their mouths shut during the baby boom.

 

I'm sorry I just don't agree with you on that, the men who fought in WWII, did so to protect not only our future generations here in the U.S. but also in Europe, and Asia. I'm sure it was one of the most trying and difficult times in these men's lives. They are a great generation because of the sacrifices that they made, to preserve the lifves that we all have the opprotunity to live today. I'm thankful that there was men of that calibur in that era to do what they unfortunately had to do.
They aren't hailed by Mr. Brokaw has the Greatest Generation because they were blood thirsty monsters that wanted to do those things they had to do, but because of their willingness to fight against evil, and if you don't thing that Hitler was evil, then nothing I say is going to reach you.

 

Uhm...US didn't get start fighting in that one until after Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Everybody had known about Hitler for quite some time. Shit, Stalin was an ally to the US. So much for your willingness to fight evil...I still like "swallow that big lump in the throat & kill white people"...it's funnier and at least as true, except that they did get to kill a bunch of Japs too.

We could go round & round all day. This thread is about something going on in the world right now. Right now the US is the country with the huge military & the leader elected by a minority & a significant number of citizens largely unconcerned with the prospect of effecting genocide. If we gotta talk about evil, let's talk about THAT evil.

 

Eddie Izzard on US and British Policy:
"Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won’t stand for that, will we?"