neither do we nor does Bush, i believe thats why the war is being fought.
neither do we nor does Bush, i believe thats why the war is being fought.
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
Exactly, and beyond that, the start of this war was more than drawn out. How many times did Bush say the war was going to start in an attempt to threaten Saddam before the war actually started? Months and months. We were waiting, kept saying we'd go to war but we didn't in hopes of solving it diplomaticly.
Sometimes, believe it or not, diplomacy fails.
I think you would have received a lot less heat if you would have kept this as your whole point and left out the preemptive president bit....I just don't want anyone to die...Either way, I understand your point, but sometimes people will have to loser their life for a greater cause. That's the way life works and will always work...sad but true...
(not trying to be a dick)silvercord i completly understand your point i just dont understand how you cant be more supportive of this military action. civilians died under saddam but there wasnt any posts about that
guns dont kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
You would have not said this if you were in Iraq!Originally posted by TechWins
...Either way, I understand your point, but sometimes people will have to loser their life for a greater cause. That's the way life works and will always work...sad but true...
US Media is just b*** s***, no offense but only the truth. They make up stories which are only fictitious and pleasing to the Americans, while the truth remains totally different. The Americans are totally astray from the truth. I think "Al-Jazeera" and a few more German channels are the only ones which are showing the right thing happeing in and around the war, I know this is right because I live in Kuwait and have a live view of the same.
It could be the other way too, the US could have miss-fired or more likely targeted. There was this thing more than a week back, when a US missile had back fired into Kuwait itself. Ofcourse, things like these never come up in media, or rather US media. I know this for sure because I saw this missile hit a fish market about 3kms from where I live which shook the whole area up and the sirens never sounded, upon enquiry we came to know that the sirens never sounded because the missile was not from the enemy Iraq but from the supposedly saviours; US.Originally posted by Govtcheez
Well, last time it happened it was (or we were told) an Iraqi missile that missed its target and came down in the wrong place. Could be the same thing again.
Bush has gone MAD, and the people supporting the cause do not know why they are doing so or for what. Just beacuse he uses some "Americanization" terms, does not mean he is right. Think about the others, the civilians who suffer the most. The civilians are not suffering from the "Dictator" or his atrocities, but the sanctions imposed on them by the "Americanization". All that the Iraqi people need for their benefit is a better economy support and not a war. They are better of without a war than without Saddam and the quest to remove him from power. If Bush really wants to rid the world of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", he should be the first to disarm and look upon it's allies like Israel who are being openly supported with Bio/Chem/Nuke wepons. This is not a point to flare up pro/anti Israel views, but only talking the fact.
<<You would have not said this if you were in Iraq!
US Media is just b*** s***, no offense but only the truth. They make up stories which are only fictitious and pleasing to the Americans, while the truth remains totally different. The Americans are totally astray from the truth. I think "Al-Jazeera" and a few more German channels are the only ones which are showing the right thing happeing in and around the war, I know this is right because I live in Kuwait and have a live view of the same.
>>
Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the soldiers to capture everything that happens?
In vietnam lots of reporters followed the army filming every destruction on there way, american and v-cong victims.
But then the americans started protesting against this war because they saw such awfull things on television. I guess pretty much the same things happen nowadays, its just not captured on tape.Bullets stay bullets no matta wat.
Just my opinion .
Originally Posted by Salem
>I think "Al-Jazeera" and a few more German channels are the
>only ones which are showing the right thing happeing
I wonder if there is any channel showing the right thing happening, whatever is right. Most channels I can see here, Dutch, German, French, American, several Arabic channels and more show the news from a certain point of view. Germany and France are against a war and that can be seen in the news on their channels, they usually show what the coalition does wrong and tell us that not everything is going as the coalition expected. The Dutch television only shows the American prisoners of war and their families, but doesn't show the families of Iraqi prisoners of wars.
Recently Al Jazeera showed a picture of a young boy whose head was broken apart and you could see his brains lying on the street. A terrible picture.
What would the American public opinion be if the reports shown on Al Jazeera of the Iraqi deaths, of badly hurt Iraqi children or Iraqi children killed by the results of bombardements or other explosives, were shown by CNN?
Every time I see pictures or hear reports of civilians being killed in this war it saddens me. But every time I try and keep the thought, in the front of my mind, that they died for the greater good.
Does anyone here disagree that the Iraqi people will have more chance of leading a better life with more freedom, choice and a higher standard of living without Hussein in power? I believe they will and I believe that we should do what we can to help them get to a situation where they have the same liberties that we enjoy and frankly take for granted here in the west. Those liberties that we enjoy in the west, did not however, come without a price. The English civil war lasted 6 years, the American civil war lasted 4 years (I think). Both wars involved huge bloodshed and destruction of people's homes, not to mention the general hardship of living in a country at war for years on end. The war with Iraq is being fought in a manner designed to bring about minimal civillian casualties. Can you imagine how Saddam would treat his civillians if they were to try and invoke a civil war to remove him? Is it not better that they have the most powerful alliance in the world on their side for this revolution? There will regretably be civilian casualties, but compared to the bloodshed other countries suffered in bringing about new leadership and compared to the likely bloodshed of the Iraqi people trying to remove him on their own, I believe this war will be over quickly and with minimal loss.
>Bush has gone MAD, and the people supporting the cause do not know why they are doing so or for what. Just beacuse he uses some "Americanization" terms, does not mean he is right. <
This statement certainly would have and did apply to U.S. involvement in Vietnam--a huge mistake which we are still paying for.
But it does not apply to this decision to oust Saddam Hussein.
We know full well why the U.S. is in Iraq, what the risks are, what the objectives are, and what the benefits of winning this
war will be. That's the big difference between here and Vietnam
and why in the U.S. and Britain there is more support for this
war than there ever was for our involvement in Vietnam. Peace
at any price led us into World War II; the same philosophy here
could easily lead us into WW III.
No. Wait. Don't hang up!
This is America calling!
<<That's the big difference between here and Vietnam
and why in the U.S. and Britain there is more support for this
war than there ever was for our involvement in Vietnam. Peace
at any price led us into World War II; the same philosophy here
could easily lead us into WW III.
And thats exactly why the UN was organized after WW 2.
To make sure that something like that wouldnt happen again. Nowadays the UN apparently doesnt count anylonger. America doesnt has the right to attack Iraq without permision of the UN (wich they didnt gave). Thats what stunned me the most, that the UN doesnt seem to act while someone is violating a peace treaty made over 40 years ago.
> US Media is just b*** s***, no offense but only the truth.
You know what's really neat, is proof. You know, likes links that actually prove this sort of claim instead of saying "only the truth". I could claim that the Indian Ocean's full of chocolate pudding, but that doesn't really mean anything without anything backing it up, does it.
> Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the soldiers to capture everything that happens?
I just turned on CNN (one of those made up news stations) and they had a live report from a reporter. Know where he was? That's right.
> is violating a peace treaty made over 40 years ago.
edit: We have a peace treaty with Iraq? That's a new one.
People, quit making claims you can't back up or have no intention of backing up.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
> Here's my favourite news story for today. It's got pictures. In colour. It must be true.
I know what you mean, but it'd be better than people just shouting out "I HEARD THE US IS GOING TO ANNEX LIECHTENSTEIN AS THE 51ST STATE!".
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
>> Did any of you americans ever wondered why there arent
>> reporters (or at least not that many) who go along with the
>> soldiers to capture everything that happens?
>
> I just turned on CNN (one of those made up news stations)
> and they had a live report from a reporter. Know where he
> was? That's right.
Yes, there are reporters with the soldiers and they probably can capture everything that happens. But I wonder if the stations are allowed to show everything the reporters have captured. Also what the reporters show is, I think, quite one sided.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2885179.stm
http://www.bangkokpost.net/en/Realti...03_real24.html
http://www.welt.de/data/2003/03/21/5...d&searchHILI=1
dunno who said this anyway
<<> is violating a peace treaty made over 40 years ago.
edit: We have a peace treaty with Iraq? That's a new one.
>>
kduh not with Iraq. I mean all the nations who are in the UN have signed something. And if a country that is in the UN wants to have a war with some other country they need permission of the UN. Without permission of the UN they violate every thing the UN stands for.
UN was set up to keep warfare out of the world. But apparently some countries that who are in the UN dont go by the book.
<<I just turned on CNN (one of those made up news stations) and they had a live report from a reporter. Know where he was? That's right.
Sry but yesterday i watched something about vietnam and the images you saw there cant compete against those we see now.
What i saw yesterday about vietnam were American soldiers who are lying in the gutter .....four men dragging someone (also a soldier) through the mud to evacuate him. Because his legs were blown of. I even saw a doctor whos hand was blown off by a grenade. Children from a village running around burned from head to toe.
Now have i seen such things on CNN nada.. yeah maybe once ..but not all the time..
I'm not an American but i do know that the Americans left Vietnam just because public opinion was against this war. Because of the fact that almost every day there was a plane flying back to the us carrying dead soldiers.....
I'm also not saying that i need to see such things on tv im just saying that right now the media is much more controlled by governments.....geeeh i wonder why they even blew up some tv-station in Iraq??? (all media controlled by governments)...OR NAH wait that station had some biological mass destruction weapons underground.... too bad that Saddam is too stupid to use his mass destruction weapons.... his country is being bombarded and he has MDW, but he's just a wuss thats mayb the reason that hes not using them.... or no mayb he jsut aint got those MDW... go figure.
When they were still trying to investigate wether sadam had MDW
they said on tele ...we have images of trucks carrying MDW but oooh we cannot locate them...
::sarcastic tone::
BUT we can launch missiles that are so accurate that there will be no civilian casulties ..
its all one big joke this war
> And if a country that is in the UN wants to have a war with some other country they need permission of the UN.
That's the UN - it's not a peace treaty. There's a difference.
> Sry but yesterday i watched something about vietnam and the images you saw there cant compete against those we see now.
What i saw yesterday about vietnam were American soldiers who are lying in the gutter .....four men dragging someone (also a soldier) through the mud to evacuate him. Because his legs were blown of. I even saw a doctor whos hand was blown off by a grenade. Children from a village running around burned from head to toe.
Would you like to see that sort of thing? Ever think maybe that hasn't happened in Iraq, or maybe the journalists just weren't there for it? What sort of a crappy argument is that?
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
