Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 87
  1.    #21  
    Originally posted by clulup

    Remember anthrax? There the Bush administration claimed it came from Saddam, too, until it was just too obvious that it was home-made US anthrax. Any excuse is ok for him, but who believes him, outside of the US?
    I think that may be the result of innaccurate reporting overseas. From what I remember, no one *ever* accused with anything more than a hypothetical, *anyone* in particular of sending the anthrax. Indeed the restraint taken on the part of the gov't and media I commend, especially given events recent at the time. If you saw stories portraying the US (or the US gov't) as thinking it was Iraqi, they (if not simply innaccurate) did not fully reflect the news as seen over here.
  2. KKenna's Avatar
    Posts
    418 Posts
    Global Posts
    419 Global Posts
    #22  
    I think in a perfect world, the number of innocents to die to remove a tyrant like Saddam would be 0. Hopefully, it's not just rhetoric that most of the invasion will be met with Iraquis giving up with their hands in the air, and no real casualties will be seen until Bagdad.

    I can't say that I'm in favor of what's going on in the middle east. This effort is simply going to be too expensive during a time when the US really needs to have the $$$ spent at home. Yes, Saddam is evil and should be killed. I'm not sure if anyone remembers the videos of him when he first came into power where he dragged out any cabinet member who ever spoke out against him into the street and shot them in the head. This guy is really bad for a a peaceful planet. However, I'm also not happy with the way our own country is being run at the moment. George Bush basically bought and cheated his way into the White House, and is using tax dollars (Billions of them) to fight an unnecessary war. What makes us think that we can solve other countries problems when we are sitting by and watching our own go to pieces ?

    George Bush is a pompus *** who's is imposing his beliefs on a lazy nation and, apparantly, the entire world. I have a 12 year old and I fear for the reparations that will have to be made in the wake of the current US aggression in the middle east. How can sending our children to die or kill the children of another nation result in peace ?
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by KKenna
    This week, William Safire reported in the New York Times that France has been secretly helping to arm Iraq -- and has been helping Iraq build long range missiles. These same missiles may soon be used against American soldiers.
    Safire "reports" nothing. William Safire is NOT a reporter, he is a columnist and his columns are his opinions which contain "facts" as he sees them and interprets them. This is not a comment on the accuracy of his assertion, but quoting him as if he reports factual news is misleading. Also, you misstate what he said. His claim is that a French company was the source of a single chemical that is used in making rocket fuel which was eventually delivered to Iraq after resales through Syria and China. The French government denies his allegation. By the way, if Saddam Hussein uses those missiles to deliver bio or chem weapons against American soldiers, he will be using weapons that we supplied him years ago when the US believed that he was useful in fighting Iran. That doesn't mean the decision to do that then was wrong then (despite how it looks now), just that there is something called unintended consequences and it affects everybody (the French, the US included) and is usually ignored.
  4.    #24  
    Originally posted by KKenna
    How can sending our children to die or kill the children of another nation result in peace ?
    You seriously think peace can never result from war? The French, British, Polish, Chinese and many others would disagree.
  5.    #25  
    Originally posted by boardoe


    Safire "reports" nothing. William Safire is NOT a reporter, he is a columnist and his columns are his opinions which contain "facts" as he sees them and interprets them. This is not a comment on the accuracy of his assertion, but quoting him as if he reports factual news is misleading. Also, you misstate what he said. His claim is that a French company was the source of a single chemical that is used in making rocket fuel which was eventually delivered to Iraq after resales through Syria and China. The French government denies his allegation. By the way, if Saddam Hussein uses those missiles to deliver bio or chem weapons against American soldiers, he will be using weapons that we supplied him years ago when the US believed that he was useful in fighting Iran. That doesn't mean the decision to do that then was wrong then (despite how it looks now), just that there is something called unintended consequences and it affects everybody (the French, the US included) and is usually ignored.
    Just thought I'd highlight that and agree.
  6. #26  
    Good to see there is more common ground shared on both sides of the ocean than just using a Treo.
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You seriously think peace can never result from war? The French, British, Polish, Chinese and many others would disagree.
    I do think peace can result from war. Take World War II as an example. Without the US going to war the whole thing would have taken much longer, and who knows where we would stand know. Which certainly does not mean the present attack on Iraq at this point in time is justified and not a violation of international law.
  8. #28  
    Compare e.g. the pictures on www.cnn.com and on www.aljazeerah.info: on CNN there is an american soldier giving water to an Iraqi prisoner, on Al Jazeerah there is a wounded Iraqi woman lying in a Baghdad hospital following US strikes in the Baghdad area. Both pictures are real, but they tell a different story.

    www.aljazeerah.info is an interesting source to see how the (moderate part of the) Arabic world sees the whole story. I guess they are not much more biased than CNN (I am really not saying anything against CNN).
  9.    #29  
    This is the best picture I've seen so far. It exactly captures what the US is trying to accomplish:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3kuly.html&e=8
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Compare e.g. the pictures on www.cnn.com and on www.aljazeerah.info: on CNN there is an american soldier giving water to an Iraqi prisoner, on Al Jazeerah there is a wounded Iraqi woman lying in a Baghdad hospital following US strikes in the Baghdad area. Both pictures are real, but they tell a different story.
    Seems to me that the pictures don't tell much of a story at all in and of themselves.
    www.aljazeerah.info is an interesting source to see how the (moderate part of the) Arabic world sees the whole story.
    I find it much more interesting if al-Jazeerah represents the _moderate_ part of the Arabic world. Makes one wonder what the extremist part is like.
    I guess they are not much more biased than CNN (I am really not saying anything against CNN).
    Well, I definitely wouldn't say that in general CNN is representative of the moderate part of the 'American world'. I find MSNBC much more moderate (or probably balanced would be the more accurate term). CNN tends to be more liberal (about to the same extent as FoxNews is conservative).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #31  
    This is the best picture I've seen so far. It exactly captures what the US is accomplishing:

    (see attachment)
    A wounded Iraqi woman lays in a Baghdad hospital following US strikes in the Baghdad area
    (Photo: Jerome Delay, AP, Guardian, 3/20/03).


    Are we beeing slightly biased and influenced by war propaganda, Kurt?
    Attached Images Attached Images
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Are we beeing slightly biased and influenced by war propaganda, Kurt?
    Yes, I think you both are. All the soldier picture shows is a man with his hands behind his back being guarded by several soldiers and being given a drink of water. It says nothing inherently of any other circumstances. All the hospital picture shows is a girl in a hospital bed with bandages/casts on her legs. It also says nothing inherently of any other circumstances. To take it to extremes on both sides, there's no guarantee that just after the soldier picture, the soldier with the rifle didn't put a bullet in the prisoner's head since the water was his last request. Conversely, there's no guarantee that someone on Saddam's behalf didn't injure the girl specifically so that such images could be shown and made to look like America is targetting civilians. In reality, though, no matter _what_ you consider the motives behind America's actions, history has shown that we do not tend to intentionally harm civilians. Can you say the same of Saddam?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13.    #33  
    Originally posted by clulup

    Are we beeing slightly biased and influenced by war propaganda, Kurt?
    Did you even look at the picture? The marines have a gun to the head of a soldier they're giving water to. That is not propoganda--putting a gun to someone's head. Please actually look at things and don't jump to conclusions. My point is we are trying to help (I'm making a statement about intent, not result--don't jump!) but use overwhelming force to do so. Again, please look at what people post and don't assume they are saying anything.
  14.    #34  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Yes, I think you both are. All the soldier picture shows is a man with his hands behind his back being guarded by several soldiers and being given a drink of water. It says nothing inherently of any other circumstances.
    You don't think it captures the paradox of killing people to liberate them? Hurting them to help them? ARG! People don't look long enough...
  15.    #35  
    Regarding the attached picture, as an informative tool I think it is serverely lacking. There is no evidence in the picture that can help pinpoint the time, date, location, situation, anything. It's just a picture of some people in a hospital. Of course with a caption it's more informative, but as a photo, it's lacking.
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You don't think it captures the paradox of killing people to liberate them? Hurting them to help them? ARG! People don't look long enough...
    And some people look too long. They're not hurting that guy solely based on that picture, and there really isn't any way to tell how close the gun is to his head. It might be against, and it might be a couple feet away. Considering how the barrel looks slightly fuzzy while the prisoner looks relatively sharp, the latter seems probable.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17.    #37  
    Originally posted by Toby
    And some people look too long. They're not hurting that guy solely based on that picture, and there really isn't any way to tell how close the gun is to his head. It might be against, and it might be a couple feet away. Considering how the barrel looks slightly fuzzy while the prisoner looks relatively sharp, the latter seems probable.
    Oh, the gun isn't up to his head, that much is clear. But as is normal, they have the gun toward the prisoner. The point is clear, though. Oh, and go ahead knock yourself out bringing up "The marines have a gun to the head of a soldier they're giving water to. " I maintain it's a great photograph, and tells a story far more than the other one.
  18.    #38  
    Originally posted by Toby
    They're not hurting that guy solely based on that picture
    Of course not. In fact I'm proud to have my soldiers take in enemy troops and treat them like those in the photo. I am not a pollyanna and realize that such images may not be indicative of all actions. But again, the contrast of guns and aid is striking. Their juxtaposition is fascinating.
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Oh, the gun isn't up to his head, that much is clear.
    Then how on earth could the photograph have _anything_ to do with 'killing people to liberate them' or 'hurting them to help them'? They're not hurting or killing him. 'Liberating by capturing'? I could grant that, but they're not hurting this guy by any indications.
    But as is normal, they have the gun toward the prisoner.
    Considering that we're not seeing the rest of the scene, you can't even say that. The guy with the gun may be just standing there.
    The point is clear, though.
    Yes, the point is clear that the only thing this picture shows is that we're treating our 'POWs' as humanely as possible. Reading any sort of paradoxes or juxtapositions into it is a stretch.
    Oh, and go ahead knock yourself out bringing up "The marines have a gun to the head of a soldier they're giving water to. "
    I suppose the fact that I said that it didn't look like they had a gun to his head eluded you?
    I maintain it's a great photograph, and tells a story far more than the other one.
    And I maintain that it's nothing more than a thematic apperception test.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20.    #40  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Then how on earth could the photograph have _anything_ to do with 'killing people to liberate them' or 'hurting them to help them'? They're not hurting or killing him. 'Liberating by capturing'? I could grant that, but they're not hurting this guy by any indications.[B]Considering that we're not seeing the rest of the scene, you can't even say that. The guy with the gun may be just standing there.[B]Yes, the point is clear that the only thing this picture shows is that we're treating our 'POWs' as humanely as possible. Reading any sort of paradoxes or juxtapositions into it is a stretch.[B]I suppose the fact that I said that it didn't look like they had a gun to his head eluded you?And I maintain that it's nothing more than a thematic apperception test.
    Alright. Again, you're just being difficult. White flag. I give up.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions