|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted April 02, 2003 08:50 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 2 Apr 2003
|
Quote
"dArGOn, you really are being sweet about all my picking on you."
 I appreciate intellectual and reasoned debate thus I think your participation is great even when we don't see eye to eye. On the other hand I have no patience for so much of the ignorance, illogic and brainless anti-americanism that exhibits itself on this thread. Thus all the more reason to be glad you have joined the debate
Onto other matters/posters
Just to clear the air about hawks, doves, etc. about Republicans and democrats. Lets look at the facts:
1. World War I- US involvement initiated by a Democrat president (W. Wilson).
2. World War II- US involvement initiated a Democrat president (FDR).
3. Vietnam- US involvement initiated a Democrat (LBJ).
4. Korean War- US involvement initiated by a Democrat (Truman).
5. The only major war initiated by a Republican was arguably the most virtuous in abolishing slavery (Lincoln).
So we see that Republican’s are obviously not the most “warmonger” by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore lets look at the real reason there is so much Republican animosity in Europe. The reason is socialism. Democrats are/are nearly socialists while Republicans are absolutely not socialist. This is the reason for animosity.
Quote
“Oh, how unbiased and neutral these "free" reporters´ reports of yours are. No, these embedded guys are not the parrots of a war propaganda campaign, what they show is not manipulated and one-sided. America is a free country, you don´t get fired there for speaking a few critical words as an NBC journalist.”
Hopeless to reason.
Yes Lews, all American journalists are parrots, you are right. In fact I hear that Bush has ordered 12 of them raped at gunpoint because they gave “un-American” views on TV.
Yes Lews, the guy was fired because he made such as wise choice to be a pawn of Saddam to strengthen the resolve of the enemy on their state run “free” news station.
Yes Lews, Bush told NBC they must fire him or all the NBC executives will all have their tongues removed.
Yes Lews, a company is not allowed (not free) to fire anyone who endangers their companies reputation and profits, unless they get your permission.
Yes Lews, there are no news agencies in America that are being critical of the war….well there were a few, but somehow their identification, birth records, and existence is now absent.
Yes Lews, it would have been grand for an American journalist during WWII to be interviewed by Hitler’s propaganda tool on TV ignorantly saying that the allies are failing and that support for the allies is crumbling.
Yes Lews, the American people are not allowed to be outraged by this "brilliant" reporter giving aid and comfort to the enemy…unless of course you authorize it.
Yes Lews, the additional coalition forces that are killed due to his interview encouraging the Iraqi resolve is a great thing.
Yes Lews, that NBC “reporter” was actually put feet first through a plastic shredder and who you see now is but a double created by the Bush administration.
All hail the land of Lews…the land of the free (unless Lews doesn’t authorize it)????
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 11:58 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 2 Apr 2003
|
No matter how you put it, it is simply censoration. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is the objective and free media?
You can't mean you think that the reportes with the troops do not serve US propaganda.
What do you think they are doing there then?
Your reasoning does not even make me laugh, because you seemingly believe that your points are valid and that those points have anything to do with the topic.
Very sad, Dargon, I expected more from you.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just to clear the air about hawks, doves, etc. about Republicans and democrats. Lets look at the facts:
1. World War I- US involvement initiated by a Democrat president (W. Wilson).
2. World War II- US involvement initiated a Democrat president (FDR).
3. Vietnam- US involvement initiated a Democrat (LBJ).
4. Korean War- US involvement initiated by a Democrat (Truman).
5. The only major war initiated by a Republican was arguably the most virtuous in abolishing slavery (Lincoln).
So we see that Republican’s are obviously not the most “warmonger” by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore lets look at the real reason there is so much Republican animosity in Europe. The reason is socialism. Democrats are/are nearly socialists while Republicans are absolutely not socialist. This is the reason for animosity.
Might I ask who was in charge for the Mexican-american war and the Spanish American war? As for those mentioned above, it should be noted that as such neither WWI or WW2 was war mongering as such. The administrations were dragged kicking and screaming into both of them after many years of problems. Hardly what I'd call war-mongering by such a party not known for it. Personally I'm not against the Rep. Party, frankly I know almost nothing about it, I just object to it's policies at the moment............
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 05:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes Lews, all American journalists are parrots, you are right.
Typical Dargon strawman argument. Where did I say that? And if you believe that 600 handpicked American reporters, who eat, sleep, live with and under the protection of the soldiers 24 hours a day, can be expected to make truthful and objective journalism, then you are even more naive and uncritical than I thought of you.
Quote:
In fact I hear that Bush has ordered 12 of them raped at gunpoint because they gave “un-American” views on TV.
Reminds me of the US propaganda lie that Saddam had special raping squads to oppress the female population. Even though that has been disproven long ago, I heard Tony Blair a few days ago repeat that lie to agitate for the war.
As for your reapeating Saddam-Hitler comparisons, they are so absurd and distasteful that they speak for themselves.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 07:03 PM |
|
|
Lews-Therin -- why do you think a comparison between Hitler and Saddam is distasteful???
PH, dArGOn, others???
(Personally I've heard some persuasive comparisons, but intractability should not be the name of the game here)
Also, one thing I do clearly recall was that Wilson was an isolationist. As PH said, he and others had to be dragged kicking and screaming into many of these conflicts because the national/global sentiment demanded it, as well as growing concerns about national security. No, dArGOn not all of them. I know. But an equally long list of conflicts could probably be made of war involvement initiated by Republican administrations, particularly more recently. For instance, can sombody remind me WHAT that whole Grenada thing was all about??? (Sorry my memory is so terrible -- but was that really necessary???)
I also paused on LBJ -- hadn't the war in Viet Nam already started??? (Once again, forgive my terrible memory). I thought Kennedy initiated our involvement (also a democrat though). Maybe one of you encyclopedic brains can straighten us out on that one too.
Finally, dArGOn, you must also concede that containment (of the Soviet threat, hence all the wars spawned by it) was a policy developed by Kennen and Dulles. (Were they not both Republicans????) Surely you'd be the last person to argue that involvement even by democratic administrations was unjustifed, aggressive, or shooting from the hip, when they were trying to carry out international policies desigend to prevent the spread of communism. I think you would also be the last to argue that the Democrats had long since been calling the policy of containment to question, no matter who started it.
I was one of them (recalling I just described my protesting days on one of these threads). I personally felt, as did many of my associates, that containment had become a disguised excuse for premptive-strike kinds of thinking, which in turn is really a disguised excuse for first-strike. In MAD (Mutially Assured Destruction) theory, first-strike was a VERY BAD WORD. The policy was becoming like a snake swallowing its tail.
So just making these kinds of lists can be very misleading in my book.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 08:14 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker...i guess all i can say is thank you... you have guessed right when you said that i was and am a young person, and like you many people find it very interesting that I get involved in disscusions like this(probably because i like politics and like to argue just as much...)
so i too don't trust the goverment of the US becasue it has many many secrets that are kept away from the public eyes...but let's not turn the subject and again thanks and i'd like to say that from your last couple of post my opinion of you has quite changed too....
now back to this war thing,
dargon from those things that you said that iraq is commiting how amny do you belive are true? And the only reason that we don't hear about things like that(POW stuff) about the allies is not beacouse they don't do it, it's beacouse they don't get out. I don't think that the iraqis are kept in very good conditions...eh?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 08:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But an equally long list of conflicts could probably be made of war involvement initiated by Republican administrations, particularly more recently. For instance, can sombody remind me WHAT that whole Grenada thing was all about??? (Sorry my memory is so terrible -- but was that really necessary???)
*anticipates dargon's possible answer*
"Conflicts are not wars, therefore they do not count......"
As selective as the prisoner/terrorist issue.
Grenada: To my knowledge of the conflict, basically the island began with a corrupt leader after gaining independance, and in a bloodless coup, a popular communist ruler, Maurice Bishop seized power. He immdeiately annoyed americans by perusing close ties with cuba/russia and persuing communist ideals. By 1983 though the course had not worked, only millitary aid was forthcoming from his allies, not economic and Bishop hinted at abbandoning the Communist ties and looking towards the west. Unfortunately his deputy and army chiefs thought different and he was imprisoned by them. When the people rebelled in annoyance and freed him, the army fired on them with APC's, killing around 100 civilians. Soon after the army executed Bishop and his supporters and placed the entire island under millitary control.
The OECS countries like Jamica and barbados met and called for the use of military force to restore order to the island, calling on america to do so. America, mostly because of the 1000 or so American students on the island agreed and soon afterwards sent two carrier groups, 1700 marines, paratroopers, tanks, Helicopters, Planes, Delta force and Seal teams to invade backed by small representations of eastern carribean forces. Quite a force considering there was probably no more than 4,000 grenadians and 700 cubans on the island....
To conclude, the conflict was over quickly in 3 or so days at the cost of 18 americans. Over 70 cubans were killed or wounded and some 400 grenadans were killed or wounded. No one to date has bothered to figure out if these were civiians/militia or millitary.
(all the above on the conflict was taken from an osprey men at arms book, and they're pretty much nearly always accurate)
Quote:
I also paused on LBJ -- hadn't the war in Viet Nam already started???
Ahhhhhh here we hit the conflict/war problem. Kennedy was involving US troops in Nam, but if I reccollect they were sent as "advisors" and not as soldiers. Truth was they were being used in combat roles, and american soldiers were fighting and maybe even (dunno for sure) dying under kennedy's reign in power. Technically as no declaration was ever made, America never did fight the vietnam "war" as such, but that's as selective as the whole conflict/war issue gets.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 09:01 PM |
|
|
See what I mean, PH, you're like a GD encyclopedia. Blows my little mind.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 09:12 PM |
|
|
Nah my knowledge stretches to modern (napoleonic to today) history of wars, Babylon 5, Everton Football club and the Aiens movies....... oh and every now and then mysteries like atlantis/ghosts
Take me outside of that and I'm a complete dumbo 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 10:43 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker said I should get back into the "fray" so here I am.
Shall we count the ignorant people who don't watch the news?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Assassinating POWs
2. Humiliating POW’s on TV
3. Pulling down the pants of POWs
4. Iraqi army wearing American uniforms
5. Iraqi army presenting white flag and then shooting
6. Tank, soldiers, and weapons in hospital
7. Iraqi army pretending to be American soldiers and killing any Iraqi that surrenders
8. Iraqi army not wearing military uniforms but disguising as civilians
9. Forcibly recruiting kids from home upon threat of death to their family
10. Iraqi army intentionally using families/women as shields
11. Iraqi army placing weapons right next to civilian neighborhoods.
12. Iraqi army firing on civilians trying to leave the city
13. Saddam having terrorists/Al Qaeda fight with them against coalition
14. Sadddam locating military weapons by historic sites
15. Saddam using suicide bombers to kill coalition forces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PH-
Quote:
Not to be pedantic, but can we see the evidence for these? Again these are nothing unusual in warfare unfortunately and to suggest otherwise smacks of selective memory.
Quote:
But they did indicate mass surrenders were likely, not really happened.....
Oh yeah, your right, 8,000 is not very many for one day. Keep it up PH.
Csarmi-
Quote:
1, You should back up your points (1-15) with evidences
Watch the news guys! It was all over CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC, and believe it or not even Al Jazeera.
Vesuvius- What is that picture?! That doesn't describe Bush at all, maybe Saddam, but not Bush.
this_other_guy- It doesn't mean anything!
--------------------------------------------------------
“I admire your sense of skepticism at your young age.”
Does anyone care to take a guess at my age?
Anyway...
Go on
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 10:57 PM |
|
|
Wolfman -- Was that a hypothetical question, or a solicitation for a bid???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 10:59 PM |
|
|
No, I really want to know what you "guys" think.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 11:42 PM |
|
|
There's a difference between ignorant and doubting/being sceptical of news reports thank you. I've seen the news, so far little has come out that is concrete and much has come out that has been hyped up or "spun". You'll forgive me for asking for proof in that case then...... It also serves the purpose of seeing exactly what incident is being referred to and the context behind the incident. Take for example the claim of using hospitals as reffered to in tanks and troops in hospital point[. What you don't find out from the point made by dargon, but do from the article is that the hospital had long been abbandonned by the Iraquis, no civilians, .
Whilst I'm damn certain hussain is mad and pretty capable of most of those things I kinda prefer to SEE the evidence or a range of evidence for myself rather than rely on the words of the BBC (since I myslef have access to none of the others) and british papers, which are mostly pro-war and quite often as biased as the anti-war. It is only in the consultation of all aspects/sides of the story followed by a proper investigation of the facts in peace time that the real truth might be close to being achieved.
I somehow contest that makes me ignorant, on the contary if I was ignorant and unwilling to see the "pro war" if you like aspect I would not have asked for the links, I would have just turned the points down out of hand. Anyone can make a list of accusations, I find it best to investigate them than denounce them out of hand. I don't think even those that dislike me here could claim that shows ignorance.
Or if you mean because I don't actually watch the news, well I happen to be extremely busy in work at the moment, working 10 hours a day to ensure a new project is brought into being. I don't get TIME to sit watching 3 or 4 news channels or read newspapers from different countries. Some people do, hence why I ask them (in this case Dargon) instead so at least I can be informed of the issue.
Quote:
Oh yeah, your right, 8,000 is not very many for one day. Keep it up PH.
Tut tut, I expected SO much better from you somehow. Try looking here, found on a 2 minute google search after I'd heard rumours the "8,000" was nothing like such.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_764618.html
I won't resort to calling you ignorant, I'll assume you just, like often happens with me missed the stories about this. Either way though, no mass surrender, lots of misinformation, through the military, the Iraquis or the press. Is it any wonder people wish proof and time to investigate before they accept reports?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2003 05:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lews-Therin -- why do you think a comparison between Hitler and Saddam is distasteful???
Hello Peacemaker, I think so for more than one reason. First of all, Hitler has murdered more than 6000000 Jews. His goal was to extinct the Jewish race from the Earth. As I see it, to make such a comparison (which Dargon is doing here about once a week) means to relativize the holocaust, relativize Hitler. For that reason, Jews in Germany consider such comparisons to be antisemitic. Which I personally do not fully agree about, but I certainly find them distasteful and dangerous.
From a factual point of view, such a comparison is also absurd. Hussein is a brutal dictator, a despot like (sadly) there have been, are, and will be many despots. In their deeds and in their aims, they have nothing in common. Moreover, in 2003 he has neither the military power, nor any plans imaginable to start a war at all, least of all to make an attempt for world domination.
People like Dargon love to instrumentalize Hitler for their own ideological purpose. It´s a universial argument, suitable to justify any disgraceful war, any atrocity, any killing. War against Hitler has been right. To justify a war before our people, we have to:
1. Personalize the enemy (e.g. Osama, Saddam)
2. Demonize him (*), until he has the face of Hitler.
* some of the propaganda lies that have been used for this (and proven to be lies) have already been mentioned in this thread or a neighbouring one, probably both
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 03, 2003 08:52 PM |
|
|
Hey Lews Therin, Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that to make a comparison with Hitler being anti-semetic is taking it too far. But there ARE reasons people have emotional attachemnts to symbols such as Hitler, and the personalization (or depersonalization) of the foe in such a way is a point that is not lost on me. If I were Jewish, I might have precisely the same reaction to such a comparison.
However, personally I know people of Jewish decent who make a comparison between Hitler (pre-WWI) and Saddam. Their whole point is that the Holocaust could have been avoided if we had risen up and stopped him BEFORE he got that powerful and went that far. While you may have your doubts, I tend to favor a suspicion that if he could, Saddam would wipe Israel off the map tomorrow. Also, as an indigenous person, I am also sympathetic that killing tens of thousands of Kurds by gassing them may very will play a more direct analogy to the Holocaust than the numbers would suggest, since the total populations of Kurds (before his attack) is likely much smaller than the total number of Jews before WWII.
As an indigenous American, I am intimately familiar with many, many manners in which genocide can be accomplished. A Jewish friend of mine once similarly accused me of minimizing the holocaust when I made a comparison to the arrival of Columbus here in the Americas. She rightly pointed out that using the Holocaust in illustraion too often to situations that were not as devastating tends to lessen the significance of the real Holocaust in peoples' minds.
I then gave her a book which contains sufficient information from which to conclude that the programs of Columbus directly resulted in the deaths of fifty million indigenous American people within a few decades. Basically, Indians were literally dog food back then.
Genocide can be insidious. The more insidious, the more effective, because you don't have peope around you clamouring "GENOCIDE" that way. It can be accomplished many ways: through slavery (when it becomes clear that an Indian in captivity lives approximately three months but there appears to be an endless supply so why not), through the natural occurrence of diseases foreign to the people, through intentional bio warfare such as the distribution of smallpox-infested blankets, through alleged "battles" in which large numbers of unarmed women and children are slaughtered, through the robbery of territoy and destruction of subsistence methods of economy (the deliberate slaughter of the Great Buffalo Heard in the plains; the constant diminishment of territory on which to live, and the resulting creation of "dependency" on the government greating a general cultural effect similar to a nuclear explosion leading to rampand teen suicide, alcoholism, and drug deaths), and fimally by ethnocide, or the overall cultural death a people experiences when their whole means of living is revoved, their numbers are diminshed by 90%, they are forcibly separated from their relatives and nations and scattered to the four winds through forced bording school attendance, punishment for speaking one's language, cutting off one's hair, etc.etc.etc.
Yet American people still think of us as somehow just having magically "vanished." They even called us the "vanishing Americans" for a long time, until people like me started getting really angry and explaining the reaons we "vanished." I guess we each have our own reactions to our own genocides, and they are all very, very personal.
Anyway, I digress. My point is that I think dArGOn was making a comparison of the poential threat Saddam poses in the form of empire-building and the threat that it in turn poses to the western world, rather than a comparison to Hitler's genocidal actions toward the Jews. (Correct me if I'm wrong, dArGOn.) The Holocaust was only part of the program. The rest of the program was taking over every country he could get his hands on and becoming ruler of as much of the world has he could. People like dArGOn and me make a comparison between Saddam and Hitler by analogy, saying that he could BECOME a Hitler in this way if left to his own devices. Not to say there aren't any dissimilarities, becaue there are quite a few and every situation is unique.
How you you feel about the other comparison to Stalin??? That's another one I've heard. I suppose his treatment of his own people suggests a resemblamce there too.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 03:46 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 3 Apr 2003
|
Hi peacemaker
Let me answer your question about the sources I used for my posts. My main source was a book that reviews Julius Caesar’s ‘Commentarii de bello Gallico’. As you might know Caesar was very skilled in propaganda and for that reason a comparison is made in the book with modern propaganda. The numbers I presented are doublechecked with a dutch newsreel, so I am fairly certain that they are correct. Also the story about Najirah is doublechecked. Lastly, I read in a dutch paper about the bombarded train during the Kosovo war. I thought: let’s follow dArGOn’s general advice to do some investigation on the subject before making stupid posts  .
Hi dArGOn
I have the feeling that you see me as an ultra-sceptical conspiracy theory believer who believes that nobody can be trusted  . Myself, I’d rather like to think that I have found the perfect level of scepticism against the media, but that’s probably untrue as well and not for me to judge either. I think you have some good points; I agree with you that many misinformation is not intentional. Of course it is often hard to know for sure if every rumour that you broadcast is correct. Your point about eyewitnesses is valid too; I have read as well that it is relatively easy to implant memories in persons’ minds. I would even like to add a few things.
Today I heard people telling that the news of the 4-6 days that general Franks had planned for the coalition troops to wait for supplies, was intentional misinformation. This could have been said to misinform the Iraqi army, allowing today’s unexpected and successful advance of the coalition. If all this is true, I wouldn’t even call that intentional misinformation a lie, but I see it more as a tactic. As you see I am not too quick in straightly accusing the American government to lie.
I would also like to add that truth often depends on your interpretation of the facts. For example, today the Iraqi minister of information declared that the coalition troops had not succeeded yet in taking a single city. On the other hand the American media reports that many cities, including the peninsula Al Faw, is firmly under control of the coalition. As you may know, a few days ago an Iraqi missile was said to be launched from Al Faw, while it was reported to be taken already. This information may be sufficiently for both the Iraqi government to claim that Al Faw is not fallen and for the coalition to claim that it is already freed. In other words: seemingly contradictory information could even be the truth.
Having said that, I do think that some of the misinformation being spread is intentional and is simply used to manipulate people. I don’t claim that it happens all the time, simply because I cannot prove that. But how can it be justified that one of the most important pieces of evidence against Saddam, which allegedly was information acquired by the British intelligence sources, was a 10 year old document from a student? This error was even admitted! My question to you, dArGOn, is how I can deny that this is a lie by the government?
You also asked me a question, namely how I would react if weapons of mass destruction were actually found. Well, it isn’t so that I would simply dismiss that information beforehand. But I would certainly be sceptical when I hear a rumour about that. Let me remind you of the factory that was found a few days ago and was said to be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. It appeared that upon further investigation only a few suits were found. But if such weapons are really discovered, I assume there will be more than one source of information that will confirm it and there will certainly be images of it on TV. You still can never be sure, but I assure you that I will think by then that weapons of mass destruction are really found. By the way, it isn’t so that I am convinced that there are absolutely no such weapons in Iraq. I just really don’t know what to believe with all this contradictory information around.
For me the bottom line is to think twice before believing the media during wartime. I am especially sceptical of the Iraqi and American media, because they have the most reason to spread misinformation. Most of the time I assume that the truth is somewhere between what both governments claim. I also like to doublecheck important information. And I try to remind myself that no media is purely objective and that my view of the world is as subjective as that of everybody else. But honestly, this is really hard and I’m afraid I don’t always succeed in it.
____________
|
|
FIREOFTRUTH
Bad-mannered
|
posted April 04, 2003 03:57 AM |
|
|
pearl jam rocks!!!!!!!!!!!
Pearl Jam is awesome for standing against public opinion and telling denver what they think of the president. Pearl Jam has been awesome not caring for what the public thinks. Everybody says we have freedom of speech but if you say something bad about the president or the war everybody says that you are being unamerican or unpatriotic and criticize the person who spoke out trying to intimidate them and scare them from speaking out if this is what the U.S.A. stands for I'm leaving this b.s. country asap. Its funny how the BBC criticize the American people for this same problem. Do we really have freedom of speech afterall? huh?
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 04:38 AM |
|
|
Yes, we do have freedom of speech, but some things just shouldn't be said. As the saying goes "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all".
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 08:29 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 4 Apr 2003
|
Quote
"Might I ask who was in charge for the Mexican-American war and the Spanish American war?"
Polk a Democrat was president during the Mexican-american war. McKinley a Republican was president during the Spanish-American war.
Quote"Hardly what I'd call war-mongering"
I don't think the democrats are war mongers either. I was merely bringing important information to the table given that most people live under a myth that Republicans are trigger happy war mongers. Actually quite interesting how such a myth could gain such popularity given the facts would lead to a very different conclusion.
Quote
"But an equally long list of conflicts could probably be made of war involvement initiated by Republican administrations"
Republicans have of course initiated US involvement in wars. The point, and a mighty point it is, is that in ALL 4 major wars in recent history...it was a Democrat as the commander in chief. No other wars, other then the civil war, can come any where close to the degree of deaths and damage done. Also of note, the Korean War and the Vietnam War/conflict, both initiated by Democrat presidents were some of the least defensible wars that we have engaged in. The casualties were very high particularly since they weren't a "world war". I am not saying that I disagree with our entrance into those wars...I am just pointing out historical information to correct misperceptions.
Quote
"Where did I say that?"
I would think by reading my whole post you would know that I wasn't saying that you said each of those statements...I was using satire to make a point. It is ironic to me how so many people in this thread...write like they think Saddam is the good guy and Bush/Blair are the bad guys...truly amazing what people will defend and minimize because they have an axe to grind against Americans. As reports flood in of all the torture, murder, rape, etc upon Iraq's liberation I am curious what these posters will do to resolve all of their cognitive dissonance.
BTW those who have read 1984 is it not pathetically funny how things in that book jump right to life. Big brother's picture was pasted everywhere in the community...likewise Saddam's picture and statues are posted everywhere. Big brother had the ministry of truth (I think it was called)...Saddam has the ministry of information (disinformation). The ministry of information is so hilarious. Today they stated that coalition forces are no where near Baghdad and yesterday they/Saddam said victory was within their grasp...LOL
Quote
"Finally, dArGOn, you must also concede that containment (of the Soviet threat, hence all the wars spawned by it) was a policy developed by Kennen and Dulles. (Were they not both Republicans????)"
I don't know who Kennen and Dulles are so I can't reply. But it is interesting how Reagan with his peace through strength philosophy was one of the big causes of the USSR crumbling and Germany being finally united. But as the saying goes...no good deed goes unpunished.
Quote
"dargon from those things that you said that iraq is commiting how amny do you belive are true?"
Knowing Saddam's history, his armies history of genocide, and his thugs (the Fedayeen) who violently murder civilians for no reason, I would say that most of the stories will likely be found to be true. But as I mentioned...most of the reports are in the "fire of battle" mostly by frontline soldiers who claim to have seen it themselves...so there is a slight possibility that they could be incorrect. The Iraqi forces killing their own people as they leave the city was videotaped by the UK forces..so that one is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Most of the other horrific tactics that I mentioned were noticed and reported by more then one source.
Quote
"Conflicts are not wars, therefore they do not count......"
People are funny. Facts are before their eyes and they want to look for anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions. Democrats are not necessarily bad for entering those wars...in fact I have argued in other posts that we have much blood on our hands for not getting involved in WWII earlier. Moreover Republicans have initiated conflicts...some defendable some perhaps undefendable...but the numbers pale by comparison! Lets look at the obvious....those 4 wars WERE THE BIGGEST by any way you chose to calculate it.
Before 9/11, I was more of a isolationist and tended to believe that we should not get involved in wars that did not directly affect us (with exeptions such as WWII, etc)...most notably I was against entering civil wars (Vietnam, Kosovo, etc.).
But 9/11 changed the landscape and apparently too few people...mostly those who weren't affected by 9/11...haven't seemed to be able to grasp that reality.
Quote
"This is the objective and free media? You can't mean you think that the reports with the troops do not serve US propaganda"
See once again the Saddam appeasers prove logic has no place in their world. The USA lets embedded reporters in...and that is dismissed as the journalist are propagandist...if the USA wouldn't of allowed embedded reporters then people would of claimed that the USA is trying to hide something. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Quote
"Watch the news guys! It was all over CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC, and believe it or not even Al Jazeera."
I get the distinct feeling that too many of the posters here don't watch/read the news. When they ask for verification of the points I have been making it kind of proves the point (PH is an exeption in my opinoin). All of those things were broadcast on mainstream TV and News websites. But I guess people won't allow information into their view if it shows the error of their ways. Nice to have you back Wolfman.
Quote
"hospital point[. What you don't find out from the point made by dargon, but do from the article is that the hospital had long been abbandonned by the Iraquis, no civilians"
I am amazed at your determination to minimize things. First, how long was it vacant? Second, and more importantly if it was vacant for 30 years that would still make it reprehensible...a hospital is a place that cannot be attacked during war...so if the military is using a hospital that puts all hospitals at risk. I am surprised that slips your awareness. That is like a military unit driving around in a red cross jeep firing at people...just because the jeep has been vacant by the red cross does not mean that it is not a horrific example of despicable tactics that endanger real medical teams and civilians.
Quote
"I've seen the news, so far little has come out that is concrete and much has come out that has been hyped up or "spun". You'll forgive me for asking for proof in that case then"
I can understand someone's healthy skepticism...but there comes a point when it becomes absurd.
Quote
"BBC (since I myself have access to none of the others) and British papers, which are mostly pro-war and quite often as biased as the anti-war"
I hope you are kidding. BBC is a very good news organization...and I generally trust them and find them to be pretty comprehensive. But it has been seen many times that if anything the BBC has a leaning towards anti-regime change. There have been many articles I have seen that discuss this.
Quote
"I don't think even those that dislike me here could claim that shows ignorance."
Who could not like you
Quote
"Tut tut, I expected SO much better from you somehow. Try looking here, found on a 2 minute google search after I'd heard rumours the "8,000" was nothing like such."
I would encourage you to not get any news from that source. It was actually quite funny. No one in the USA government last week said that 8000 had surrendered to them (aka they were POW's). Last week there were about 3-4000 POW's as claimed by the USA government. As of today there are about 10,000.
The reports from the USA government about that 51st Infantry Division a week ago was that some surrendered, some capitulated (sp?), but most had just disappeared (i.e. ran from battle, disguised themselves, or went home). That news source link you gave is about as reliable as Saddam's state run media.
BTW what does Tut tut mean?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2003 08:32 AM |
|
|
Quote
“First of all, Hitler has murdered more than 6000000 Jews.”
Ok let me understand…unless someone murders 6 million Jews they can’t be compared to Hitler? Now lets look at the comparisons between Saddam and Hitler:
1. Both have mustaches…hehe had to throw that one in.
2. Both had state run media/no free media
3. Both suppressed and killed all people who disagreed with them
4. Both practiced genocide
5. Both attacked neighboring countries with no provocation
6. Both practice brutal torture
7. Both are/were megalomaniacs
8. Both are/were secularists/atheists (though Lews and I disagree on this point).
9. Both had a central goal of uniting all people under their control (Hitler the Aryans and Saddam the Arabs)
10. Both used religion when it suited their purposes.
Now some of the ways they don’t compare
1. Hitler I believe was democratically elected
2. Hitler killed more people
3. Hitler had much stronger army
4. Hitler took over more countries
So in the end we find that they are completely identical except Hitler was elected and had more military might, therefore was able to kill more people.
Quote
“However, personally I know people of Jewish decent who make a comparison between Hitler (pre-WWI) and Saddam. Their whole point is that the Holocaust could have been avoided if we had risen up and stopped him BEFORE he got that powerful and went that far.”
Good point.
Quote
“On the other hand the American media reports that many cities, including the peninsula Al Faw….”
Wub another great post.
A few things though to keep in mind. Many times the media releases things that the government hasn’t. Such as war plans….the media guesses about war plans and they all do Sunday back quarterbacking, yet they tend to present it as gospel truth. The media doesn’t know the war plans and as such they are constantly guessing and making it sound very different then what the government is actually saying/doing.
Moreover…some cities are surrounded and can not receive reinforcements….is this a captured city? Is this a “secured city”? Is this a “held” city? is this a “freed city”. There is a range of descriptions that can be applied and if you don’t give the right adjective then many people can get the wrong idea.
Also as I pointed out earlier…wars are fluid. Ground is typically taken and then retaken, and then taken and retaken, etc.
Lastly, most of the cities won’t be safe for a long time….how are the coalition forces suppose to fight the enemy when many of the enemy isn’t wearing uniforms. Just think of our own cities….how many gangs and criminals run free and make the city unsafe…even more so with Saddam’s Fedayeen.
Quote
“I’d rather like to think that I have found the perfect level of scepticism against the media”
hehehe don’t we all
Quote
“which allegedly was information acquired by the British intelligence sources, was a 10 year old document from a student? This error was even admitted! My question to you, dArGOn, is how I can deny that this is a lie by the government?”
I remember hearing about the story a while back, but unfortunately I didn’t bookmark the website that both were pro and against. But one thing I do think I recall is that nothing reported was false…or are you saying that this alleged paper from a student contained lies?
Quote
“no media is purely objective and that my view of the world is as subjective”
Truth for all.
Quote
“Everybody says we have freedom of speech but if you say something bad about the president or the war everybody says that you are being unamerican or unpatriotic”
Hmm lets me see if I grasp your amazing logic. Freedom of speech for PJ to slam Bush is ok. Freedom of speech to say that PJ’s actions are despicable and unamerican is not ok.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
