Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue



Play Time: Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden.
Links of the Day: Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us.
Stories of the Day: Smothers Brother's son is porn star. Thanks Chuck!
A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Thanks crazy0ne.
Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James.
Images of the Day: Bubbacomp. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003.

View
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 19.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >

52. Re: Iraq... Mar 20, 2003, 16:38 Jedi Master
 
" We've got the feeling, that since a few years your government doesn't care at all, what the rest of the world is thinking. You lead the way, we have to follow without the slightes chance to even get asked. That's not exactly how you would like to have a partnership."

Can't say I disagree. But that's the cowboy we have for President. See, Al Gore was seen as a robot, a "Vulcan for President" as it were, while W was more like "one of the people." Consequently, he won, although he has just as much tact.

"The involvment of people from the oil & weapon industry in your government"

Weapons? Old myth. Defense contractors have no power other than the jobs they create--and loss of such jobs is the #1 reason given politicians fight for or against a given contract. Their own asses are all they see.
As for oil, you got it there. Bush appointed his oil buddies and this is the result--a gov't that doesn't have a clue.

Do remember the US is a republic--a representative democracy. This is good in that it protects the gov't from acting based on the whims of the people--and it makes media influence less.
The media don't care about the gov't, all they care about is people watching them. They say what people want to hear and show what they want to see else they get turned off. The realities of war don't make good TV. Fancy graphics do. Pouncing on a president for his intern dallies makes good TV. Denouncing him for doing what no one else has been willing to do for 12 years doesn't.
That's not to say they don't influence things, they do. But they have their own agenda. Just listen to the dumbass questions they ask at press conferences.


The Jedi Master

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:37 Atomic
 
Opposition to this war at this particular time

At what time or under what circumstances would this war be necessary for you then?


 
Avatar 2718
 
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Anti-War is not Pro-Hussein Mar 20, 2003, 16:33 Weas
 
Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/images/BigSignDay.jpg


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:32 JHMirage
 
Try to understand this: War is sometimes necessary != war is good.

I agree. (Though probably others don't.) That doesn't really have anything to do with my point, however. Maybe I should have been more clear by saying "Opposition to this war at this particular time" but I figured I didn't need to be so verbose. I think the big argument you'll find is whether we were really at the point of war being necessary.

Jeff

This comment was edited on Mar 20, 16:34.
 
Avatar 11160
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer over?
Virus = very yes?
That's not a good prize!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:28 Atomic
 
Try to understand this: Opposition to war != favoring Hussein's regime

Try to understand this: War is sometimes necessary != war is good.


 
Avatar 2718
 
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Iraq... Mar 20, 2003, 16:28 Hayes
 
Sadly you are not that wrong. Go see Bowling for Columbine and What Really Happened in Panama. America has been corporatized for a long time, and the fact that Halliburton, Cheney's old company, got the contract to put out the oil field fires, is quite telling. And that $1.5 billion worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq were doled out to US corporations before the start of the war, without any congressional oversight. America needs to begin to take into account the dissent of the world as more than just jealousy and misunderstanding

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:27 Jedi Master
 
With the economy in the crapper? There was an election 18 months after Bush Sr's victorious triumph over Iraq, and the economy wasn't as bad then as it is now, nor was it bad as long as it has been bad now.
Growing positive economy = Bush reelection.
SOS we've had for the past 2 years (or almost 4 years of crap) = Bush loses.
The American people don't give a rat's ass about foreign affairs when they're unemployed or (possibly worse) fearing they will shortly become unemployed. Once you're out of a job, stress can actually decrease.

The Jedi Master

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Iraq... Mar 20, 2003, 16:18 Schornstein
 
This is way offtopic, but maybe I try to explain why some of us old fashioned Europeans are reluctant towards the things happening in your country right now:

- We've got the feeling, that since a few years your government doesn't care at all, what the rest of the world is thinking. You lead the way, we have to follow without the slightes chance to even get asked. That's not exactly how you would like to have a partnership.

- Some people here think, that the U.S. are not very democratic anymore in a way as we understand it. The involvment of people from the oil & weapon industry in your government seems really strange to us and makes us wonder whether they decide, what's best for you, or what's best for them and the companies that use to feed them.

- what shocks us is your media (we recieve CNN here in Germany as well). The way a war is presented there as some sort of action game, with computer animations all nice and clean. Are you really sure, that your media is still the free press it used to be or is it more or less a press channel from the government? Where are some critical questions and starting a war is definitely the time to aks a lot of questions. How is it possible to proper judge a certain information for an individual if your not sure anymore whether you can trust the basis you build this opinion on?

I desperatly hope that these assumptions are wrong. That would be a pretty scary combination, more scary for you American people than for us outsiders.

So hopefully all this is a view from the outside, we get from our biased information sources. You are in a better situation to judge.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:15 Rudy
 
Dictator Bush? - please, he's too much of a moron to be regarded as such. I don't have any doubt that what is happening in Iraq right now is correct, we just can't convince people to be on our (US) side when we have such a blockhead in the Oval Office.

I liken it to some sort of dumb high-school drama. The spaz has a good idea, but no one wants to be seen as part of his clique.

My greatest fear out of this mess is that it will galvanize support for Bush, and he'll stay our president for four more years.
 
--Rudy
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:14 Pellet Puppy
 
Move your feet makes my computer crash
Anyways... Where's The Dude?
"There just needs to be the perception internationally that the US obeys the UN, not the reverse. "
Well I don't think the UN is always right or should have any power. And The US should never pretend to be the tool of the UN. They try to make everyone happy and end up doing nothing. Because Peace is good. War is bad/evil.
And now that the US has started the war(without Mommy's permission) is the UN going to try and punish the US? No.

This comment was edited on Mar 20, 16:19.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 16:01 JHMirage
 
It is that fucking BLACK and WHITE!
For you to dismiss that as "schoolyard arguments" is not only idiotic - it is naive.

Um... what? You're boiling one of the most complex and cantankerous international events in the last decade to something that is "BLACK and WHITE" and you have the nerve to call someone else idiotic and naive? Sure thing, there, skippy. Keep repeating to yourself whatever Rush Limbaugh is telling you… soon it will all make sense and you can stop thinking for yourself.

With an attitude like that it is no wonder Saddam has been able to rally some sympathetic support. You know - he still needs some human shields to protect his military structures. Need help with an airplane ticket?

This is my favorite new tactic by the right-wing nutjobs out there now... if you're not completely over-the-top, blindly vocal in your support for Dictator Bush you must be some kind of Iraqi sympathizer. (Or maybe even a hippy or commie!!)

Try to understand this: Opposition to war != favoring Hussein's regime.

Jeff

 
Avatar 11160
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer over?
Virus = very yes?
That's not a good prize!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:46 c r i s p y
 
Bronco,

Thanks for taking time to address this rationally.

I also wish the US had found a way to make a UN resolution happen. I truly believe that part of the reasoning behind not waiting any longer is the weather. In a short time it will be just too hot to operate heavy equipment and or wear chemical suits in the desert.

This does sound like a reasonable explaination, though the fact that I hadn't heard it until now leads me to wonder why I hadn't heard it until right now, considering how closely I've been following things.

I have to say that 'acted more diplomatically' in your statement is vague. I believe that no matter what the US brought to the table, the French were prepared to veto.

For what it's worth, I beleive that the extremist attitude of the French government has been over the top. Anyone who knows a good number of french people knows that 'stubborn' doesn't really do them justice. However the same could be said of the US's position on this. The US was too quick to let out that they were going to go to war with Iraq with or without the backing of the US, leading some nations to cally take an adversarial stance. As evolved and enlightened that we all pretend to be, nobody likes to be bullied.

The current coalition is larger in number (over 40 nations) than the previous Iraq coalition (roughly 30 nations). Just different players this time.
If the French did not have veto power I think the resolution to the resolution would have passed.

You may be right, although I haven't seen the full list of countries that comprise this 40 nation coalition. Surely the lack of support from some of the worlds more (for lack of a better word) important countries counts for something.

Do the French and where they stand today in the political spectrum warrant veto power? What was the true reason for Frances decision to block this action? Politics, economics? Does it matter? At this point no.

I agree. Whether France deserves thier veto or not is a debate for another time. The fact of the matter is that at this time they currently have it. I for one am surprised at the anti-French sentiment that is being endorsed by the US administration, considering that there are other manny other countries who do not share the US's views on this war. Something doesn't stack up.

The US's military power seems to have blinded them to the fact that 250 (or so) million people still represents a rather small minority compared to the 6 (or so) billion people that represent the total population of this planet.

I agree in part with this. It would be great to have a truly equal society where people in countries in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else where leaders are not elected by the people could do so. It would be great to have that 20-20 hindsight in the present to avoid future pitfalls. I'm beginning to feel, more and more, that the US needs to rethink it's involvement in the worlds problems. I know that isolationism isn't the answer but it is tempting.

Obviously, I think the answer lies in the US deferring to the judgement of the UN, EVEN when said judgement doesn't necessarily agree with the wishes of the US.

I mean, let's be realistic. More often than not the US's interests and the UN's interests are going be compatible. There just needs to be the perception internationally that the US obeys the UN, not the reverse.
 
---
Chris.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:46 snowdog
 
"These are simple schoolyard justifications."

I think that has to be one of the most idiotic statements I have ever seen in my life.

There were resolutions passed by the UN that spelled out EXACTLY what Iraq needed to do to comply and EXACTLY what the consequences were if they did not. It is that fucking BLACK and WHITE!

For you to dismiss that as "schoolyard arguments" is not only idiotic - it is naive.

With an attitude like that it is no wonder Saddam has been able to rally some sympathetic support. You know - he still needs some human shields to protect his military structures. Need help with an airplane ticket?

This comment was edited on Mar 20, 15:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:28 Devster
 
Aw jeez... I was actually hoping for a moment there that this would devolve into a "our beer is better than your beer" thread.

The only thing I'll interject is that having Canadian resources (frigates & iroquios on the water, troops on the ground) ostensibly helping out with the 'War on Terror'/Afghanistan situation allows our notoriously fence sitting government to help out the US in a general/oblique fashion (i.e. taking the place of assets the US can use elsewhere) while still allowing them publicly to say 'gee, we're not involved in the Iraq war'. <shrug>

For a bit of tongue-in-cheekness, I'd suggest we put it to the people in a referendum, and call it the "Baghdad Accord".



phuck write of ewe type-o crytics
 
Avatar 1066
 
Use your head, don't lose it - Don't feed the trolls!
Boycott Belligerent Boycotters!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. ! Mar 20, 2003, 15:24 Bunko
 
Fuck the war!

--------------------------------------------------
Bunko
TI-83+ Graphing Calculator, 64k Memory, 1" Display
Not good for ninja fights.
 
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:21 Bronco
 
I am convinced that, had the US acted more diplomatically towards the UN, military action in Iraq would have proceeded with the full backing of a majority of the world's governments.

Chris,

As always, you argue your points elequently. I respect your opinions.
I also wish the US had found a way to make a UN resolution happen. I truly believe that part of the reasoning behind not waiting any longer is the weather. In a short time it will be just too hot to operate heavy equipment and or wear chemical suits in the desert.

I have to say that 'acted more diplomatically' in your statement is vague. I believe that no matter what the US brought to the table, the French were prepared to veto.

The current coalition is larger in number (over 40 nations) than the previous Iraq coalition (roughly 30 nations). Just different players this time.
If the French did not have veto power I think the resolution to the resolution would have passed.

Do the French and where they stand today in the political spectrum warrant veto power? What was the true reason for Frances decision to block this action? Politics, economics? Does it matter? At this point no.

The US's military power seems to have blinded them to the fact that 250 (or so) million people still represents a rather small minority compared to the 6 (or so) billion people that represent the total population of this planet.

I agree in part with this. It would be great to have a truly equal society where people in countries in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else where leaders are not elected by the people could do so. It would be great to have that 20-20 hindsight in the present to avoid future pitfalls. I'm beginning to feel, more and more, that the US needs to rethink it's involvement in the worlds problems. I know that isolationism isn't the answer but it is tempting.



-TPFKAS2S
http://www.braglio.org
How many toes does a fish have?
How many wings on a cow? I wonder, yep. I wonder!
 
Avatar 10139
 
-TPFKAS2S
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. No subject Mar 20, 2003, 15:18 alnya
 


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:14 JM
 
People (and by extension, nations) prefer to be asked, rather than told, what to do.

Well, we did ask Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions. And then we asked again...and again...and again. At what point do you suggest we stop asking and finally do something about it?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:01 c r i s p y
 
Iraq has NOT respected the international rules of law. They have NOT followed the UN's rulings.

Iraq, for the last 12 years, has basically told the UN to kiss their a s s.

That is why we are there. That is why we will finish the job.

We ARE following what was clearly laid out in the UN resolutions. There was never a treaty with Iraq - just a cease fire. This war is totally legal and just. To say otherwise shows a severe ignorance of the situation.

These are simple schoolyard justifications. Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs do not make a right?

The ironic thing is that EVERYONE agrees that Saddam is a bad man and should be removed from power. The US and the UK are the ONLY countries that have the balls to do it.

It has been precisely this attitude that stalled progress in the US-UN impasse. People (and by extension, nations) prefer to be asked, rather than told, what to do. The US's military power seems to have blinded them to the fact that 250 (or so) million people still represents a rather small minority compared to the 6 (or so) billion people that represent the total population of this planet.

I am convinced that, had the US acted more diplomatically towards the UN, military action in Iraq would have proceeded with the full backing of a majority of the world's governments. This in turn would have greatly added to the legitamacy of any military action against Iraq, as well as providing an excellent example to other rogue nations of what can happen if they refuse to play nice with the rest of the world.
 
---
Chris.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 14:51 Moonbender
 
Disgusting.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 19.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo