photo, why we are here

[Faber 0]

Quote

I just hope that someone won't use that picture as a reminder why he is in New York whit truck full of explosive.

I think your so rigth...

Its tough to be at war,its even tougher if its in our backyard

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[cgross 1]

I noticed the guy I was talking to was from Croatia, and thought actually he would understand the US position better because of that. He clearly must know that targeting civilians is not what US foriegn policy is about, but that innocents die in war.

The main reason though we supported SH was because he was actively going after IRAN. Much like we supported Stalin for awhile too. You know what happened in Beruit, and why we hated Iran. We didn't like Iraq either, but it was the lesser of 2 evils in the region.

Also, there was hope there, since Iraq was the only Secular state in the region. Our thought was that maybe, just maybe Iraq would go democratic and bring some stability to the area.

That thought will be there with the new gov in Iraq too.

There are pushes in the Middle East where this is beginning to happen, and it is a step in the right direction. Places like Bahrain and Qatar now have "Independant" journalism (not completely but getting there). Thiswill help in the long run to show the middle east that a "GREAT DEAL" of their problems are not with us, but instead with there own governments.

This will alltake time yes, but will help with regional stability in the long run.

Do you get digital Cable?
I just got it, and there is a Discovery times channel. Now I hate the "Liberal" NY Times, but they are getting better. Anyway, the times teamed up with Discovery to create this channel, and as of late, there have been some excelent shows and documentaries on the Mid East. Very enlightening, very balanced.

In my opinion, this war will breed some short term hatred, but some long lasting possibilities for peace in the middle east.

[Tf15 0]

It would be good if you would differentiate between what you know for a fact, and what you have heard from some media source that is just hearsay. Some of the things you state unequivocally as "facts" suggest you had dinner last night with the Director of the CIA.

Three times is enemy action

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

It would be good if you would differentiate between what you know for a fact, and what you have heard from some media source that is just hearsay. Some of the things you state unequivocally as "facts" suggest you had dinner last night with the Director of the CIA.

Well, in the case of the war in Iraq, I'd have to say that the vast majority of what we know could be classified as hearsay. Mainly because most of us haven't ever been to Iraq, aren't there now, and even history books present a point of view.

That said, I think it usually takes 2 independent sources for a newspaper (that bastion of sloppy liberal thought) to consider something to be reportable as fact rather than opinion or hearsay.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cgross 1]

John,

You are right, I should not trust the AP or reuters, but the odds I will be sitting down with the President tonight are slim.

So I will stick with the trusted companies we get our news from, they have been quite reliable through the years.

Are you suggesting that no info is good or factual if I don't get it right from the source? I guess I will throw my TV and newspapers away.

And, if we all did that we might be accused of being uninformed citizens. Catch 22 I guess.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It would be good if you would differentiate between what you know for a fact, and what you have heard from some media source that is just hearsay. Some of the things you state unequivocally as "facts" suggest you had dinner last night with the Director of the CIA.

Most of what he was writing of (i.e. support Iraq against Iran etc.) is essentially correct.

We also must understand back then there was an underlying priority: The Cold War.

That issue trumped everything in the day.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[cgross 1]

One otherthing I forgot to mention... If you read my post you will notice when It was my opinion I cleary said "in my opinion"

[shabakazaa 0]

It doesn't say it all, brother. Nonetheless, I agree with you.

Huh? The Bro. The Manzier.

And a big hello to Rhino!

[Kinaa 0]

Quote

Sorry, but I need to correct you on a few FACTs you mis spoke about.

First off, we did not support Iraq when he fried the Kurds. We stopped supporting Iraq when they used Chem weapons against Iran (before the Kurds). IN FACT, we began to support IRAN again Iraq at that time. If you are going to state something factual then source it. My facts are coming form th NY TIMES in a piece called "Understanding Iraq" it was presented about 3 weeks ago... Look it up, maybe you will learn something.

If that what you wrote is truth, what it is speaks about your country politics? Is there any moral?
All i can learn from that is that I should not trust your country. (Maybe it is why shiit muslim mutiny against SH fail to come, cos they learned from history on a hard way)
I am aware that your country is protecting your interests, but that does not make it right.
There is good book to read 9-11 by Noam Chomsky...

Quote

Now,... let me explain to you the difference between a war with civilian casualties and terrorism.

I don't think that you know what is war, and civilian casualties, and i don't think that you know what is terrorism. You might think that you do, but you aint. We had war here in Croatia, and only half of country was directly affected whit war (my town was first line - or last, depends how you look at it) and you can se difference between people who was directly affected by war and dose who was not. Even if it passed 8 years from end of war. We still talk, think, or have political, moral opinions different. You should see our political newsgroup, it is much like those war threads that we have here at dz.com :-)

Quote

Terrorism targets civilians without discrimination

Yes that is what the book says. But can you explain what is then bombing of Iraqy or Serbian TV houses? Is that terrorism? You could say that those houses are serving the regime, but where is the line then? You could say that for any other target in Iraq, but someone could say that for any target in USA.

Quote

Modern war targets enemy forces, and at times civilian casualties happen.

This war is maybe called modern because of use new weapon but it is same as every other war that was on. Innocent people die.

Quote

Is it OK that this happens??? Well, that is the price of war. Sacrifice for the greater good.

Who's good? Maybe yours. But I don't think it is for Iraqi poeople. They are still fighting against your army. So I guess they don't want that freedom that you are bringing, and I guess they think that S.H. is lesser evil than J.B.

Quote

Let me explain one other important thing. The USA will also kill it's own civilians for the greater good.
Example:
We have reasonable knowledge a hijacked plane filled with passengers is going to fly into a building with thousands in it. If we could get there in time, WE WILL SHOOT it down to save the others on the ground.

That is my point. You have your country, and you have right to do whatever you want in it.

Quote

If it wasn't for nessesary war, you wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

I don't get it?

Quote

What gives us the right to decide about lives of the children? THe fact that Iraq's leadership doesn't care about them, and the morality of the USA! Why do people in Iraq starve during an "OIL FOR FOOD" program while SH wealth increased by 4 times?

Isn't that their business? Isn't it about fathers and mothers of that children? I still don't see them fighting on your side against S.H (no matter how I would like to see it)
And if you think that you bringing them freedom, by destroying their towns, and killing their fathers, brothers, you are my friend wrong.
A asked a citizen of Serbia couple weeks ago about your intervention there (Situation could be related whit Iraq, they had Milosevic, a dictator, whit exception that he was not killing their own nation, only others in whole ex Yugoslavia) about how hard would be their resistance in Serbia if your army would invade them. His answer was (you can find it at hr.soc politika in thread called "Hoce li Amerika izgubiti rat", but it is on Croatian :-p)

His answer was...
...Unity against "NATO aggressors" lasted for a couple of days right until people did not see child of political (unless they stayed in country) driving "hot cars" everywere in Beograd while others are losing their lives on Kosovo Highest revolt was on Milosevic son Marko. He kept using heavy mecanisation that army needed for making trenches while building amusement park.
Now about land invasion. Part of army would surly accept that battle, but others would fled like rabbits. i think that good part of people choosed between two evils and pick lesser. So they would not put his own body at service to Milosevic. I remember clearly whole army units fleeing from Kosovo. Those men were talking clearly that they don't afraid to die, but that the battle under that circumstancens is pointless.
Mutiny against Milosevic was not likely to happened, maybe cos Americans whit their barbaric behavior cause not to happened. I would like to find out why it was that way. The same story is now in Iraq

Their bombing of Serbia and Crna Gora 1999 had few phases. Maybe it will be interesting to compare it whit Iraq. Thewir military logic is simple. Make it situation worse, until they surrender.

1. "Knock knock were here" couple of missiles falling way of the cities. There is no civilian casualties and maybe even no military. The message is clear - If you surrender you will be spared.
2. The show goes on" - now it is serious. Army is destroyed everywhere, destroyed buildings all around us, bridges...It is really barbaric and vandalic cos the collateral damage thing start to happend to frighten the public. Remember Aleksinac, Grdelica, burned train on tracks, hospital "Dragisa Misovic" in Belgrade, center of city Nis scatter all over whit cluster bombs, PRChina embassy. Americas spokesman justify the atrocity ("legitimate military target") and openly lie, and propaganda of our home dictator enjoys and showing civilian victims " The worse -the better" says both sides.
3. Middle ages - carbon bombs are cutting our electricity, places are without water. The whole western comfort disappear. It was our capitulation. It is hard to believe that grafit bombs which can't hurt a bird did so more than couple of megatons of crap that fell all over us.

BTW Mcd's started to work again couple of days after war.
We had Coca Cola all the time.
Hatred against Americans dissapeared even before october happenings while Milosevic went down
...

You see - they did not want to die for Milosevic (even tough he is pussycat for Saddam), and they capitulated without your land invasion, but Iraqi people are still fighting. That should tell you something. You might be doing something wrong.

Quote

If 1000 innocents die to save 1,000,000, then that is justified in my book.

Who are that 1000 innocent, and who are those 1000000? And who has the right to decide?

Quote

I guess you stand with the POPE. Just sit back while murder rape and torture happens, it will work itself out. Right? Just like it did in WWII when the church took the same stance.

I'm not (nor the 80% of my country an large part of the world) convinced that you are in Iraq because humanitarian reasons.

Quote

If you remember we came to the rescue. Everyone called Churchill an idiot, just like they do with bush today. But now Churchill is praised, and I think you will see the same with Bush and Blair.

Well you did not came to help my country. Not in WW2. Nor ever. My own people liberated my country from Germans. Not USA, not Russians.
And the fact that you came as liberators at WW2 does not put you automatically on rightous on every other war.

Quote

I noticed the guy I was talking to was from Croatia, and thought actually he would understand the US position better because of that. He clearly must know that targeting civilians is not what US foriegn policy is about, but that innocents die in war.

I understand. And I cant find any reason to justify your war against Iraq. The fact that you are protecting your way of life in the foreing country at the other side of globe scares me. And when I read that James Woolsey words, it scares me more. And when I see pictures from Guantanamo...And when I remember that UN is become evolution luxury...

I.P.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

He clearly must know that targeting civilians is not what US foriegn policy is about, but that innocents die in war.

I think his contention is with the assumption that war is necessary at all. We're there now, yes. Does that really mean that it's OK now?

It isn't. Just because you're in the middle of a river of shit, and have to deal with it, doesn't mean it's OK to be in a river of shit. Even if you call it fertilizer. It might be quicker and better to get out the other side, bit it's still a river of shit.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kinaa 0]

Thanks Wendy.
I know that I could write it shorter, and write that what you did, I just could not find out how at that moment.
It could spare me of two our writing, and that spell check, that thing is killing me sometimes.
I apologize for my bad english, I'm doing the best I can.

I.P.

[jannu 0]

Hello!
The picture that was attached to the first post in this thread... makes me think... the topic, "Why we are here"...
Have you ever thought why did those things described in the picture happen? Why were 'they' 'there' ?
Just for the fun of it? don't think so...

[wmw999 2,589]

Don't you dare apologize for speaking another language well enough to debate abstract issues in it. Anyway, my Croatian is only as good as a translator would make it

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,120]

>To some degree yes, but our support stopped the moment he used
>Chem weapons.

Uh, no. The timeline goes:


March 1984 - Rumsfeld meets with Saddam to resume diplomatic relations.

March 1984 - The UN reports on Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran.

November 1984 - Diplomatic relations between US and Iraq restored.

December 1984 - US sells helicopters to Iraq.

1986-1988 - US provides military intelligence assistance to Iraq to aid them in their war against Iran.

Late 1988 - Iraq uses chemcial weapons against the Kurds.

After that incident the US stopped providing aid. You're probably thinking of that date, but it's not the first evidence we had of his CW usage. We were apparently OK with Saddam using CW against the Iranians, as they were our enemies at the time and the Kurds were not.

[bobsled92 0]

Quote

While you are there you are doing that (see pic) I just hope that someone won't use that picture as a reminder why he is in New York whit truck full of explosive.

I.P.

I still have a picture in my head from in front of the store I bought food at in Sarajevo. A Serb man being cut in half by 2 other men, guess where they were from?!
It was just one of many accounts that are reason for war. It is disgusting to think that people do these things to other humans like ANIMALS. They attack U.S. civilians too! not just within the U.S. but around the World for being American or Looking like an American. No different barbaric behaviour you and I have seen.
Most of the people here have no idea what it is actually like. So whether they give you a liberal/Anti-U.S. pat on the back or a hard opposition, concider that they don't have a clue as to what they are for or against. It's a shame I will never get to see Siska but , Slovenia's a fair middle groundI won't know if I will be in the War until Aug. but I'd rather be buying a new Comp. Cobalt at that time instead I hope you bought one already, I know you demo'ed for a while.
Jumping is better than fighting and I have not been shot in 7 years now AMEN!

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[natiberger 0]

Quote

List of the countries that were bombed by the United States, after the aim of 2ª World War:
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonésia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Granada 1983
Líbia 1986
El Salvador 80
Nicaragua 80
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 - _ _
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001

I guess this list is larger than yours, and I'm sure there's a lot of countries missed.

And do you think with a war you'll resolve the problem of terrorism? It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.... isn't it better to stop giving them motivations (may be the imperial actions). You can kill Osama and friends, destroy their weapons but you won't kill the anger of the rest of the people (that will increse with every war to fight terrorism) who can continue with Osama's job. And one day may be you will have to kill all humanity. And finilly the whole world will be yours... Mmm that can a little bit complicated I think...

What is it? like some kind of world cup? Or a religion? In which you support your country whaterver it takes? You're free to have your own opinions, and question the war or whatever government action. That won't make you an antipatriotic. Your country is not the government. It's the people and the goverment works for the people. It seems like you are a slave of your government but you didn't know it.

[Dolemite 0]

Either way, you gotta root for YOUR home team!

-Dolemite

"Officially disapproved by the man"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You like many arab news agencies only want to show one side of the story.

I don't see too many of these pictures on cnn, or fox news or msnbc or abc news etc etc.

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

didn't we help put S.H. in power over 20 years ago even though we knew he was bloodthirsty SOB?

No, we didn't. Did we support Iraq against Iran? Yes, in the begining of the war. Then he slimmed Iran, and we switched sides. Should we have supported either side? IMO, no. We are on our 4th President since the Iran/Iraq war (Ronbo, Bush Sr., Slick Willie, now W) and I think all have realized the mistake that was made back then.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Ronbo, Bush Sr., Slick Willie, now W

Now that's one I haven't heard in a long while! I wonder how many people remember that?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Is it OK that this happens??? Well, that is the price of war. Sacrifice for the greater good.

Last time I checked - those in the middle-east that are angered have declared a war on the USA - they feel that suicide bombs and death of American civilians are just part of that war. We call it terrorism. Semantics.

By doing so, we may have motivated them a bit more to make more sacrifices. I would guess that is the reason why we are back to Terror Alert Orange.

The problem with war is that its a matter of perspective. And who are you going to believe, the media? OK, from which country? No one in media ever lies or stretches the truth to get a good story.....

Just as we say to whuffos "define normal" anyone can say "define right/wrong" or define "good/bad."

Part of the problem is that most people have a short term memory on violence and who caused it - one of the reasons the NYTimes, CNN, USAToday, etc have an expose explaining the political/religious/violent history anytime a hotspot hits the news. Pretty easy to spin a story when most of the population didn't care the last time the story came up. Now, it seems that we are experts on the middle east and are now passing judgments on people. The same thing happens in other countries as well. All it takes is a charismatic person to round up people to support the current action.

I went to Ireland before the current peace, and witnessed quite a few terrorist actions while over there......I used to be gun-ho just like others, saying things like ""screw it, let's just bomb them" but my perspective changed once I actually lived around this stuff. I'm sure if I witnessed first-hand a true war zone my opinion may change again. But, I sit here nice and safe in my home, thousands of miles from any danger. But I'm sure that article in the paper really is telling me all I need to know on the subject.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....