PDA

View Full Version : Tears of the Sun



Nick Phoenix
03-09-2003, 02:05 AM
Just got back from Bruce Willis\' latest flick with music by Hans Zimmer. I have to say that I really liked the movie and thought Hans did an amazing job with the music. Great sound and nice melding of 2 styles throughout the entire film. Melodically nothing new, but a great supporting score. Somehow the concept of military bravery has become a very American concept in Hollywood. I am not immune to the emotions that a film like this stirs. It is truly a shame that our government has been on the wrong side, 9 times out of 10, in these types of conflicts over the past 50 years. If this movie was reality, the US would be supporting the murdering guerillas and not the democratic government. War is coming soon. Look deeper.

tob
03-09-2003, 02:13 AM
Nick, you almost sound like an european.. most americans seems to defend the US government no matter what..

Havent seen the movie yet but I hope for big and bombastic true MV sound.. simple but big themes.. and yeah, the old Zimmer style that almost all of us like, hehe.

/Tobias

vaultcomplex
03-09-2003, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Nick Phoenix:
...It is truly a shame that our government has been on the wrong side, 9 times out of 10, in these types of conflicts over the past 50 years. <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Name the 9 out of 10 times please.

Nagash20
03-09-2003, 08:27 AM
This is off-topic, but what the heck.
Im soooo tired of hollywood movies nowadays.. Somehow they wanna show us wars with honor in it.. I was doing research for a history essay and I talked to veterans from WWI, WWII and The Gulf War.. Three wars fought with completely different methods.. Nevertheless, all of them said the same thing..

Quote: Do not talk about war like something with pride and honor, because there was none. End Quote.


Interesting fact: Often when a country talks about their military history, they only talk about the times they failed.. Why is that?
I dont know how many movies thats been made about the Vietnam war, but its gotta be alot.. But how many movies has been made about The Gulf War??

Am I way off here..
Btw, im not american

ngstime
03-09-2003, 01:03 PM
well, except for Mel Gibson war movies, which is the same \"pride and honor(FREEDOM!)\" cheez scripts, just insert different time and place (braveheart, the patriot)

most war movies in the past 15 years or so tends to focus on the grim negative impact of war has on a person. I don\'t recall a positive pride and honor on the vietnam war.... it took hollywood years before they did vietnam movies. I don\'t think a glorious movie on veitnam would go over good. pride and honor was not what I felt when adagio for strings kicked in Platoon.
I recall there was a movie on the gulf war (can\'t remember the title) that dealt with the negative impact friendly fire had on a person.

Maybe it\'s just me, but I don\'t recall a glorious \"pride and honor\" war movie in the last 20 to 30 years....
What war movies are you referring to?


Aaron Dirk

MikeGraybill
03-09-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by ngstime:
I recall there was a movie on the gulf war (can\'t remember the title) that dealt with the negative impact friendly fire had on a person.


Aaron Dirk <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Courage Under Fire prolly? Good flick.

C_Huelsbeck
03-09-2003, 02:04 PM
I thought the music was just standard Zimmer, a decent job, but maybe even subpar at some times (especially when you would take out that talented African singer)... but I really like his work in general. Sound quality was good as usual with MV productions.

The last movie score I really enjoyed was \"One hour photo\" by Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek.

Lewis
03-09-2003, 02:41 PM
Wonderfully spoken Nick.

Sometimes I really wonder - who is actually the dictator and who is actually living under dictatorship. I mean. Iraq has one dictator and no obvious counterparties. US has 2 parties (so many choices!) - but in the end it doesnt matter.

Because:

1. In US its allowed to have an animal (primate/chimp) for president.

2. In US you will be elected dictator. Even though your competitor (Gore) has over 500.000 more personal votes then yourself.

3. In US you can be the only country ever to throw a nuke and still blame others for planning on doing it.

4. In US you can win a lawsuit for putting your puddle in a microwave.

5. In US you can kill your wife and still leave the courtroom because you were actually not awake, while commiting the crime.

I love US. Its just such an amazing blend of paradoxes and possibilities. US is the most potential tragic-comic invention ever made - and none the less - I love it all.

Love - Chris

vaultcomplex
03-09-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Lewis:
Wonderfully spoken Nick.

Sometimes I really wonder - who is actually the dictator and who is actually living under dictatorship. I mean. Iraq has one dictator and no obvious counterparties. US has 2 parties (so many choices!) - but in the end it doesnt matter.

Because:

1. In US its allowed to have an animal (primate/chimp) for president.

2. In US you will be elected dictator. Even though your competitor (Gore) has over 500.000 more personal votes then yourself.

3. In US you can be the only country ever to throw a nuke and still blame others for planning on doing it.

4. In US you can win a lawsuit for putting your puddle in a microwave.

5. In US you can kill your wife and still leave the courtroom because you were actually not awake, while commiting the crime.

I love US. Its just such an amazing blend of paradoxes and possibilities. US is the most potential tragic-comic invention ever made - and none the less - I love it all.

Love - Chris <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Or, you could go live in Iraq, where you will be killed for what you just said (had it been directed to the Iraqi government of course).

Lewis
03-09-2003, 04:16 PM
I just bought a new cellphone. Ericsson P800 - cell and palm in one. In the manual it says:

\"... this electronical device is not to be used or distributed in the following countries: \"Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya...\"

Why? Because they are regarded as \"enemys of the state\" I presume. My manual doesnt say why and dont give any reason for why I should not use it in these countries.

Anyway. Vault. How do you know? Have you been to Iraq? Do you have any other understanding of Iraquish culture then what you have heard in the news?

I am pretty sure its not nice down there, however I dont really know what Iraq is about. All I know is what I have seen on the television and read in newspapers. Call me naive. But I wouldnt dare commenting on whats true or not down there. I need documentation - and so far I have seen none.

Anyway

Anyway. I dont have beard enough to grow those fat mustache snails those dudes have. I simply wouldnt make it in Iraq.

Love - Chris

Lucas
03-09-2003, 04:42 PM
Chris Wrote:


In US you will be elected dictator. Even though your competitor (Gore) has over 500.000 more personal votes then yourself.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Chris, from day one in the US, the president has never been elected by popular vote, but by electoral vote. There is much history and theory behind this.

So, you think we should change the rules after the fact because you and some others don\'t like the result?

AJF
03-09-2003, 05:00 PM
*** Moderators - Please move this thread to the OT forum ***

vaultcomplex
03-09-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Lewis:
Anyway. Vault. How do you know? Have you been to Iraq? Do you have any other understanding of Iraquish culture then what you have heard in the news?

<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Ok, this is my last comment on this topic. I really do not want to get drawn into an endless political debate. I\'m too lazy to type that much. images/icons/tongue.gif

I have heard several people who used to live in Iraq (and escaped during the Gulf War) talk about what life was really like. It sounded very unpleasant indeed. If you were found with a weapon you were shot on site, and some of those that spoke against Hussein in public were wisked away and never seen again.

Lewis
03-09-2003, 05:38 PM
I agree that this is OT. None the less its still interesting.

But yes - I do suggest that \"me and some others\" which would have to be the majority of the american public with at least 500.000 votes should have a re-election. Whats democratic about not counting votes correctly? Since when does a system ignore half a million votes? Is that democracy? I doubt that very, very, very much.

Vault. When I talked about documentation I was mainly concentrating about evidence on the current war to come. Where is the proof? Where!?
By all means - I believe he has some nasty things - but so many countries got loads of stuff.

Anyway. The war is gonna come. Nomatter how much I whine. I believe it was level 42 who made the superb popsong in the 80\'s: \"Running in the family\". I guess it does.

You Cheetah! Me Tarzan!

Love - Chris

Z6
03-09-2003, 08:53 PM
Or, you could go live in Iraq, where you will be killed for what you just said (had it been directed to the Iraqi government of course).

Or you could go live in Iraq and be killed by UK and US forces whether you said anything or not. Or you could go live in Iraq and direct it at a lamppost and look stupid. Or you could go to Iraq and say hi to all the poor people before they die.

I have heard several people who used to live in Iraq (and escaped during the Gulf War) talk about what life was really like. It sounded very unpleasant indeed.

And about to become even more unpleasant, it seems. Thankfully, the world champion speech defector and all-around tough guy, George Bush and his faithful puppy Tony (\'..no, I didn\'t used to let Peter Mandelsen enter my back passage\') Blair are about to give the Evil One a stiff kicking. That\'ll teach him. If only he\'d leave of his own volition, then we wouldn\'t have to murder and maim thousands of innocents. But as long as we know we\'re right we can kill as many as we want, and by god, they\'d better be grateful. Those missiles and bombs are bloody expensive and I hope I don\'t have to listen to any whinging Iraqis bleat on about losing a leg, or a granny or a couple of children after we\'ve gone to all that trouble. Those bombs weigh a bloody ton, and that sand gets everywhere.

The Iraqis just have to know that god is with us. In fact, I think Tony Blair might actually be god - or at least Jesus. After the war it\'ll be great. The national average wage could rise from the current $5 per month to over $8.50 in a matter of five or six years.

Why, if I were an Iraqi, I\'d shave my head and paint a big red dot on it then I\'d climb on top of an important building, such as a post office or bakery so that our brave boys know where to aim to set me free.

I wish I were an Iraqi, about to be freed by god\'s own. I heard that Bush wanted to go to Vietnam years ago to fight the good fight but he stubbed his toe on the way to the draft office. I bet he would really have kicked some gook arse if he\'d gone.

Tony Blair is even tougher. I reckon he\'d beat up Batman in a square go. He used to be the bully of Eton. For those not in the know; Eton is a really tough school in the UK; only the hardest kids go there.

In fact, I\'m sure Tony is Jesus, because he can right a wrong with a right - just like Jesus. When Tony Blair let ALL of the IRA and unionist murderers out of prison I thought he was bonkers, but I saw his halo on telly and knew he must be right. When the IRA murderers didn\'t disarm as promised, I thought Tony would kick their Irish arses but he just turned the other cheek and spent a lot of time on Clapham Common with his advisor Mandelsen.

He\'s not letting a git with a beard make a monkey out of him, that\'s for sure. Lucky for Saddam that Bush or Blair can\'t personally get hold of him. Saddam may have been a contract killer in his youth, but even after extensive training from U.S. \'advisors\', Bush or Blair would kill him in a fight. And I know that Bush and Blair would be willing to die for this cause otherwise they wouldn\'t send other people\'s kids, would they? I bet they hate it that they can\'t get into the actual fighting themselves.

Luckily, in the West we have august and influential bodies we can strong-arm or bribe or ignore, before we go in and get Saddam where it really hurts. Pity they\'re about to disappear. Never mind.

What better way to get Sadders than killing everyone before he gets to them? I reckon the next time we sell chemical weapons to a madman, we should put little tracking devices on the boxes so that we can find them when we think he might want to use them. Cause we only sold them for his mantlepiece really: six thousand boxes of anthrax look really cool in your livingroom. Luckily, it occurred to George that he might use them on us as well as the people we wanted him to use them on: Iran. Or is it Iraq? I get mixed up with that N and that Q? I think Bush has that problem too. It\'s quite understandable and nothing that a little attack on Iran won\'t cure. Better to make sure while we\'re in the vicinity that we got the right baddies?

It\'s great being Western and right and good, and not Asian and nasty and always wrong about stuff. We\'re so lucky. If I wrote this in Iraq, you wouldn\'t even understand it cause it would be backwards and probably in Arabic and I\'d get arrested and they\'d give my balls electric shocks and spit on me and stuff.

I\'ve already booked my holidays to Iraq this summer. I just hope I don\'t end up mistaking Anthrax for sugar or something stupid like that. And those missiles Saddam has got; My god HE IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION of UN mandates: it can travel 24 miles further than it\'s supposed to! I once cycled 24 miles, it was pretty far I can tell you. And Vault isn\'t the only one who knows people who said Iraq wasn\'t pleasant. I bought a budgie from a shop run by a guy with a mustache, and you should have heard that budgie! Most of it wasn\'t clear but I think some of his friends had said something about the government and they got all their feathers plucked out. The lady budgies then got raped for not wearing any feathers. Iraq is terrible.

Yup. Iraq is a horrible place. But as soon as we kill a few thousand children and free them and build a Disneyland and you can get a decent Macdonalds instead of all that Muslim stuff those darkies eat, it\'ll be an OK place by me. And I\'ll bet that Vault\'s pals might even go back there and start a shop or something?

North Korea: \"Kiss my arse Amereeka! Eat my pooh! We got nukes aplenty and we drop em on you!

America: \"Please. How much do you want? Ten Billion? Twenty? We have Sixty billion of Iranian money that we.. ahem.. froze.. a while back and it\'s burning a hole in our pockets? Let\'s be reasonable.\"

Bush: \"Bin Lademm. Oh, we\'ll get him. We\'ll get Bean Laben. But Maybe Iraq has Nookular bombs that maybe someone else might use on us? Shucks paw. What should I do?\"

Bush Snr. \"Marry yer grandma son.\"

Blair: I love him dammit. I don\'t care if this destroys my career. I want to go to Italy and become a potter. I am nice. I am. I think if Jesus were here today, he\'d agree that things have changed, and that it is all right to love a man, if your wife is a bit of a bowser. The hand of history is upon my private parts - and I\'m just a boy who can\'t say no.

Bin Laden: Remember George. The deal was - I don\'t get caught OK? And don\'t talk about most of the 9/11 attackers being Saudis, OK? And remember.. say after me.. the Saudis are our pals. The Saudis are our buddies. The Saudis are swell.

Sharon: Vee are not s! Vee only attack zee civilians vees American meessiles and tanks when one of zem blows himzelf oop. Vee make sure that vee only kill Palestinians; vee never kill humans. Zat vay, vee can be sure that vee hav killed zee correct race. Vee have no gas chambers. Vee are not committing genocide. Vee are zee oppressed. Remember? Sixty years ago? How can vee be bad? Vee are good and kind and right. Vee haf God on our side.

Arafat: I am an ugly, ugly man.. an ugly, ugly man.

Let us pray to Our Lord Tony that no white people or Christians are killed, and that Bush is given free rein to deliver North Korea and Iran and all the other heathen, godless countries, into righteousness.

jimmyrow
03-09-2003, 09:38 PM
In response to Vault\'s question about dictatorships supported by US administrations (not the citizens of the US), here\'s a short of the top of my head list -

Saddam Hussein, Pinochet in Chile, Somoza in Nicaragua (as FDR said \"Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he\'s our son of a bitch\"), Marcos in the Philipines, long lines of dictators in Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Burma, Indonesia/ East Timor, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Apartheid South Africa, Apartheid Israel, Haiti,Colombia,etc...

These oppressive regimes were supported militarily and financially, whether by direct shipments of arms, or by grants, loans, loan gaurantees, etc...

As a citizen of the US I do not write this simply to bash the US; I write because my compatriots have a lot to come to terms with and because as citizens of the most powerful nation in history we have a responsibility to the rest of the world and particularly its children to change the way this country is run, that it may live up to the ideals that it has always rhetorically endorsed.

Peace, open source code, and quality samples for all!

Lewis
03-09-2003, 09:57 PM
After the war. Here is what will be told - regardless of the truth.

\"...The US discovered several mobile armsfactories with all the substances to create neuclear devices. It is believed that the Iraqish have been trying to build a bomb during the last 4 years. Several investigations will soon look into the matter...\"

A few years later. All forgotten.

Oh and btw. breasts are very, very, very important.

Love - Chrissie Lewisa

Hans Adamson
03-09-2003, 10:36 PM
He he, - Good to see Z6 back in good old shape! This forum was almost getting a little boring for a while...

Hans

Marko
03-10-2003, 12:49 AM
\"The audience\'s tears are more likely to result from boredom, irritation at Hans Zimmer\'s wretched fake-world-music score and inadvertent amusement at the thunderously earnest dialogue and Ms. Belluci\'s awkward line readings.\"

Review of \"Tears of the Sun\" (The New York Times, Friday, March 7, 2003.)

Joris de Man
03-10-2003, 04:16 PM
Aw please?

WW2 proved that America is an essential social and economic hub for the world?
Why is it that I always hear americans make that statement and never the english or the canadians (they had something to do with liberating europe as well, as far as I can remember:).
It seems that although through this liberation America granted us Europeans the right to freedom, it apparently did not grant us the right to disagree.
If you\'ve seen the news (other than CNN), you might have heard that the vote for attacking Iraq is far from unanimous.
Political leaders in the EU are torn between the will of the people (who have reacted with the biggest demonstrations since the Vietnam war) and the economic and political ties with the US.

The link between Iraq and Al-Queada has never been proven; it only became an issue once the US realised that it became increasingly more difficult to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The argument for attacking Iraq has changed in the last months from:
-Stating that it had weapons of mass destruction (the UN inspectors couldn\'t find any) to
-Iraq\'s possible link to Al-Queada (unlikely since Saddam is considered by many not even a real muslim; he only converted to it in recent years; recent reports indicate that Al-Queada groups are actually staying around the borders of Pakistan, since it is a desolate and ungoverned area) to
-the fact that Saddam is a tyrant who opresses his people and needs to step down.
Come on! He\'s been the same Saddam for over 30 years! Why is this such an urgent matter right now? It hasn\'t been before in the last 10 years since the gulf war..and let\'s be honest, we (US and EU) didn\'t care about it before either.
The US intelligence even incited two uprisings in Iraq before to overthrow the government..and than failed to do anything when these uprisings started.
At the moment it just looks to me like the biggest military nation on earth is trying to pick a fight. Why they don\'t pick North Korea instead is a big mystery to me.
With all this talk of war it appears that no one has ever considered other options.
As soon as the talk about Iraq started, battleships and troops were already moving into the area to set up camp.
Sure, it puts the pressure on, but it also exhausts any other peaceful solution that might exist.

I\'m far more fearful of the US at the moment than of Iraq. Yes, it sounds crazy, but it is also the only nation that has ever actually used a nuke in a conflict(twice in fact, even when one would have done the job).
I fear that a US attack on Iraq will cause an outrage in the muslim community that will ripple out much further than we can imagine.
I think that 9/11 has proved that an attack on the US would not come in the form of a nuclear attack or otherwise of a country such as Iraq, but as a small scale terrorist attack that is far harder to predict and to defend against.

Cheers,

Joe

Jan
03-10-2003, 04:58 PM
He he, - Good to see Z6 back in good old shape! <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Hmm, a ‘good’ shape?

The same venomous chant I have heard probably a million times, ‘the Jews are bad, bad people who attacked the poor Palestinians unjustly’, ‘Sadam is harmless’, ‘the USA is the eternal capitalist aggressor’, all these views in just a short monotonous ego-induced story. Z6 must be an expert on foreign affairs, someone who knows exactly how the world turns, a self anointed god from Sunnyvale, California.
I’d say he perfectly fits a shape, a very familiar mould, but to call it good?
Nah, my definition of good is very, very different from his.
The Iraqi Peace Team could use a god to protect them, why doesn’t Z6 join them in Iraq, now, form a human shield for that harmless dictator? Nevermind all those thousands of Kurds Sadam killed, how he used biological weapons to wipe out entire villages.

Thank God (you know, the God of the ‘bad, bad Jews’) there IS a nation such as the USA willing to act NOW, while Sadam has NO atomic bombs, while his supplies of biological weaponry can be contained (hopefully), while it is still POSSIBLE to stop him. In case everybody has forgotten, Sadam has a proven track record for attacking other nations (and even his own people AND family when they get in his way). It’s not about picking a fight, it’s about acting NOW before it is TOO LATE to act.
Because IF Sadam would have atomic toys, you can be DAMN sure he would love to see NY light up like a Christmas tree. Failing that, he would make DAMN sure he would complete Hitler’s mission and end the Zionist evil with one big blast.

A famous statesman (Winston Churchill) once said: “If you do not stand up for what is right when you can easily win, there may come a time when you have to stand up for what is right and lose.”


\'I think that 9/11 has proven that an attack on the US would not come in the form of a nuclear attack or otherwise of a country such as Iraq, but as a small scale terrorist attack that is far harder to predict and to defend against.\' <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">That is why it is so important not to isolate yourself from the rest of the world, but keep your eyes wide open. Atomic bombs fit in suitcases nowadays, you know?

‘The price to pay for democracy is eternal vigilance’. In more than one way.

Joris de Man
03-10-2003, 05:54 PM
[/QUOTE]That is why it is so important not to isolate yourself from the rest of the world, but keep your eyes wide open. Atomic bombs fit in suitcases nowadays, you know?

‘The price to pay for democracy is eternal vigilance’. In more than one way. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, I think you misunderstood what I meant by that. My point was that 9/11 showed that you don\'t NEED an atomic bomb to do major damage to a country.
Sure, IF Saddam had nuclear capabillity he could attack the US by aiding a terrorist group. But you would probably never know about it if he did. That is one of the key elements of terrorism. An unknown agressor who can attack at any point it any time at any place.
This whole Iraq bussiness has put one of the real issues in the background; where is Bin Laden?
And if you start invading countries just by the fact that they MIGHT aid terrorist with nuclear weapons or otherwise, where does it end?
You might as well invade North Korea while you\'re at it; they\'re not even making a secret of their desire for nuclear capabillity. They even started up one of their previously sealed off reactors...a far bigger threat than Saddam\'s unfound bombs.
You can quote Churchill all you want, but his statements were made in a wholly different context of the world situation.
At the time that the US and Allies reacted to the 2nd world war, it had already been in full swing for 3 years. Most of Europe was under german control and the systematic eradication of the Jews was well underway.
The Iraqi situation is very different. What the US is proposing is a pre-emptive strike on what they perceive as a dangerous country.
I think one country attacking another because of what they MIGHT do is setting a very bad precedent for future conflicts.


Cheers,

Joe

vaultcomplex
03-10-2003, 05:55 PM
WW2 proved that America is an essential social and economic hub for the world?
Why is it that I always hear americans make that statement and never the english or the canadians (they had something to do with liberating europe as well, as far as I can remember:).

Maybe that\'s because America IS an essential hub in this world. Do you think WWII could have been won if the U.S. just sat here minding it\'s own business. Let me remind you the war on terrorism was brought upon us when U.S. soil was attacked. Should we sit idlely by and wait for another 9/11 before we take action?

It seems that although through this liberation America granted us Europeans the right to freedom, it apparently did not grant us the right to disagree.

No one is contesting your right to disagree. I don\'t where you got that conveluted set of logic.

If you\'ve seen the news (other than CNN), you might have heard that the vote for attacking Iraq is far from unanimous.

The U.N. unanomously agreed that Saddam must comply with U.N. Resolution 1441 and completely disarm, or he he will be FORCED to comply. That is FACT. The debate going on right now is simply, \"Is this the right time to use force?\" Perhaps you need to pay a little more attention to what\'s going on instead of assuming I don\'t know what I\'m talking about.

The link between Iraq and Al-Queada has never been proven; it only became an issue once the US realised that it became increasingly more difficult to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The argument for attacking Iraq has changed in the last months from:
-Stating that it had weapons of mass destruction (the UN inspectors couldn\'t find any) to
-Iraq\'s possible link to Al-Queada (unlikely since Saddam is considered by many not even a real muslim; he only converted to it in recent years; recent reports indicate that Al-Queada groups are actually staying around the borders of Pakistan, since it is a desolate and ungoverned area) to
-the fact that Saddam is a tyrant who opresses his people and needs to step down.
Come on! He\'s been the same Saddam for over 30 years! Why is this such an urgent matter right now? It hasn\'t been before in the last 10 years since the gulf war..and let\'s be honest, we (US and EU) didn\'t care about it before either.

\"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he\'s made? Well, he will conclude that the international community\'s lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he\'ll use the arsenal.\"
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

I suggest you also read these articles.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html (\"http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html\")
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F25%2Fwnidal25 .xml (\"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F25%2Fwnidal25 .xml\")

At the moment it just looks to me like the biggest military nation on earth is trying to pick a fight. Why they don\'t pick North Korea instead is a big mystery to me.

There\'s a big difference between a ruthless dictator trying to decieve everyone and build weapons of mass destruction which would be readily available to any enemy of the United States and the political propoganda of North Korea. They\'re mad that we cut off supplies when they broke a nuclear agreement, and they are trying to incide us to do something we\'ll regret. The time to talk to them will come when they become more desperate for attention.

With all this talk of war it appears that no one has ever considered other options.

War is Saddam\'s choice. All he has to do is come clean and completely disarm as per his agreement and war can be avoided. This has been going on since last September. It\'s not as if he hasn\'t been given enough time. His pattern is obvious: Don\'t comply, then at the last moment, feed the U.N. some crumbs. He denied having certain weapons, then said he had them but they comply, then admitted they don\'t comply and will disarm them... then waits and disarms a couple missles out of thousands.

As soon as the talk about Iraq started, battleships and troops were already moving into the area to set up camp.

The troops were sent out in December, and talk of Iraq started reaching the U.N. and the media in September. The Iraq situation has been discussed for years, but no action has been taken until recently.

I\'m far more fearful of the US at the moment than of Iraq. Yes, it sounds crazy, but it is also the only nation that has ever actually used a nuke in a conflict(twice in fact, even when one would have done the job).

First, I seriously doubt the U.S. has any beef with the Netherlands (not to mention important sample libraries like SAM Horns comes from there!) We dropped one Nuke and Japan still refused to surrender. It wasn\'t until the second bomb was dropped when they gave up.

I think that 9/11 has proved that an attack on the US would not come in the form of a nuclear attack or otherwise of a country such as Iraq, but as a small scale terrorist attack that is far harder to predict and to defend against.

I wouldn\'t exactly call the death of 3,000 innocent people by a plan that was years in the making \"small scale.\"

vaultcomplex
03-10-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Joris de Man:
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">This whole Iraq bussiness has put one of the real issues in the background; where is Bin Laden?
And if you start invading countries just by the fact that they MIGHT aid terrorist with nuclear weapons or otherwise, where does it end?
You might as well invade North Korea while you\'re at it; they\'re not even making a secret of their desire for nuclear capabillity. [/QUOTE]

First off. Bin Laden\'s 3rd in command was recently captured, and authorities are narrowing down his position. Have you been watching what\'s been going on? The search for Bin Laden hasn\'t slowed down one bit since 9/11.

The U.S. has, in the past, always worked with China, South Korea, and Japan regarding North Korea and it would make no sense to stop doing that now. Dealings through those channels has been successful in the past and the U.S. will continue that route. I guess I shouldn\'t expect you to know much about U.S. foreign policy since you don\'t live here, but please don\'t go yabbering on about how much you think you know about what to do with complex situations like North Korea.

Z6
03-10-2003, 07:18 PM
Jan. How dare you! How dare you attribute both anti-semitism and a reflection of your own feeble-mindedness to me. Are you the same \'Jan\' who gave the spout a while back about \'Arabs\', by any chance? Are you the person who made me rant that you had invented a \'nigger\' for the new millennium? Venomous? Are you back with this again? Do you have any actual views on why killing thousands of innocent people is a good thing? Get rid of Saddam? How low does the brain-cell count have to be to think like this? The US and the UK are now saying that if Saddam beats it out of Iraq then they won\'t attack. So what exactly is it that this murder will achieve? He\'s bad enough that we\'ll contemplate killing thousands of women and children to remove him, but if he removes himself he can go live in a palace somewhere, untouched by our wrath? How cheaply do we value the lives of people in poor countries? How many poor countries that cannot defend themselves does the US have to attack before the bloodlust is satiated?

On world affairs, yes, compared to you I am an expert on foreign affairs (but that\'s not saying a lot so you can lay off my ego, thanks). Can I have an opinion? You want me to be a shield? Jeez, if you were American you\'d be telling to go back to where I came from. Do you have a white pointy hat, I wonder?

Reading such ludicrous dimwitted tripe I know why little gits like Bush and Blair get to do what they do. \"Iraq is a bad place\" \"Saddam is an evil man\" \"We\'ve got to do something\" \"We\'ve got to stop him....\" blah blah blah. Is there even one rational argument out there?

Know your enemy Jan. In your dreams maybe you heard it a million times, but a million times still obviously isn\'t enough, so I\'ll keep on saying it.

I said Saddam is harmless? I said that? Who said that? Did anybody say that? Sharon is a ; it\'s not his jewishness with which I take issue, it\'s his crimes against humanity. Sharon may be tried for his crimes before the old bastard finally gets a lump of lard stuck in a major artery, but he\'ll probably get away with it all: all the murder, the complicity, it\'s disgusting. All the more disgusting that feeble minds interpret this distaste for genocide as an attack on Judaism. I\'m tired of this garbage. Israel is an apartheid state. Pure and simple.

The Israeli government might do better to learn from their own history; to remember what it felt like when it was happening to them in Germany. The shield of anti-semitism has worn pretty thin, I\'m afraid. I don\'t give a monkey\'s gonad whether they\'re Jewish or Christian or Muslim. Firing missiles into apartment buildings is no kind of justice. Stopping ambulances at roadblocks and bulldozing peoples\' homes is not an argument for the prosecution. What the hell kind of country has refugee camps full of its own people? And what the hell kind of \'superpower\' pays for that?

Vault: Liberal shmiberal. I am no such thing and I can\'t see how you\'d get such an idea. Liberal, conservative, republican... stupid labels to make us think we understand. Labels cloud the issues here. People. Real live people are going to die. Would it be just if we killed everyone in Oklahoma because a terrorist was spawned in that city? This is not about Saddam or any threat he poses. It is about unilaterally sanctioned mass murder. Democracy in the US is being dismantled. These are dark times for the US and future generations will wonder how we could have allowed such crimes to take place in our names.

We should all be very ashamed if we spill any Iraqi blood, or if we send youngsters to their deaths for nothing at all.

The reason for the attack is little more than a game of political whack-a-mole; it changes almost daily. \'Harbouring terrorists\' indeed. As far as the West is concerned Saddam has done nothing wrong - ever. He is a vile murdering brute. A repulsive example of how awful we humans can be. The world will be a better place when he is gone. But he has done nothing whatsoever to the West. He invaded a repulsive tyranny called Kuwait - that\'s it; that\'s \'our\' involvement - he threatened to hurt the oil supply. He certainly has perpetrated many, many dreadful acts upon many people - millions of people. But he has done nothing to the West - at all. He is as bad as a whole gaggle of repugnant human beings who rule countries with fear and death and torture, and we do nothing about any of them. We even gave Suharto 43 billion dollars. Saddam was a swell guy when we sold the weapons we\'re bleating about now. It\'s all so ludicrous. When will we ever get decent leaders? Mohammad said that we get the leaders we deserve. He was right, unfortunately.

I apologize for losing my sense of humour here. Couldn\'t someone just offer a few hundred million dollars for Saddam\'s head, and we\'d get it delivered on a plate? But then, of course, we wouldn\'t get a war, would we? We wouldn\'t get to talk tough, and say what \'we\' will do to Saddam, when someone else has to do the dying.

Couldn\'t we take Bush and Blair to the Iraqi border and make it known to the Iraqi forces that if they let us through no one would get hurt. Couldn\'t we just let Saddam and Tony and George fight to the death on prime-time TV? I\'d bet my life that such a prospect would change our brave leaders\' minds in a jiffy. How naive I am.

vaultcomplex
03-10-2003, 07:29 PM
I suppose the difference between you and me Z6 is I have faith that any military operation will be carried out with the utmost regard for civilian life. Saddam is one man and he has many loyal followers so it\'s not as simple as killing him I suppose. I don\'t think offering a simple reward for Saddam\'s head will do anything. I really doubt an assassin would be able to sneak into Iraq and find his way into the heart of Saddam\'s hideout like a would-be hero in a video game. The thing is that whenever an Iraqi citizen (or ex-citizen I should say) speaks about Iraq it\'s always how awful it is over there and how much they hate Saddam. I\'ve never heard a single compliment saying Saddam is a great leader, other than from the obviously controlled Iraqi media.

vaultcomplex
03-11-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by jimmyrow:
In response to Vault\'s question about dictatorships supported by US administrations (not the citizens of the US), here\'s a short of the top of my head list - <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">?? I never asked that question. However, did you know that once we were enemies with Russia?! Gasp, how could that be?!?! We\'re friends with them now! Wait! I don\'t understand!? Cold War?! What\'s that?! You mean foreign policies CHANGE over time? WOW!!!!!!

vaultcomplex
03-11-2003, 12:23 AM
Z6: America is so evil.

Vault: What about Saddam?

Z6: Saddam? Are you kidding? He entertained at my kid\'s birthday last week. He\'s a peach!

Vault: Really, well what about his connections to Al Qaeda and willingness to sell his weapons to other enemies of the U.S.?

Z6: Oh I wouldn\'t worry about that, it\'s not like anyone is going to attack us all the way over here. I mean an attack on us? Haha, that\'s so funny.

Vault: 9/11?

Z6: Oh THAT. Well that\'s obvious. It was all our fault. We always stick our nose in other people\'s business. We were just asking for that. Nevermind that the Great Depression and WWII proved that we are an essential economic and social hub to the world, those were just flukes. We should mind our own business and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

Vault: I see, well what about the U.N.\'s unianimous agreement that Saddam is a threat and must be dealt with by force if necessary?

Z6: Those French don\'t think so!

Vault: No the French just want more time. Many agree that time is up.

Z6: Well damnit I\'m a liberal and I have to whine and complain with sarcastic and mean spirited undertones to get my point across! Deal!

Jan
03-11-2003, 09:12 AM
Z6, I never attempted to have my brain cells counted, and perhaps you have more brain cells than I have. But what good does that do when you obviously use only a miniscule portion of that grey inactive mass? It’s not about the quantity, it’s about the quality, but I guess this concept has not yet arrived in your world.
As far as my reaction goes: your reputation precedes you, I have witnessed you here on the forum in the past, bashing at other forum members and developers, pestering them like a spoiled little child. When I am faced with someone of your calibre I react in an appropriate manner. And by the way, I never made you rant about anything, that is something you were doing to yourself, envisioning ghosts in the murky shadows of your thoughts.

I guess I must have hit a nerve, judging from your reaction, you even remember me, how flattering. Funny you should not think of yourself as a liberal while your views are repeated ad nauseam by the liberal elite, apparently you’re not just a liberal, but a liberal in denial. Hmm, a liberal in denial, is that a conservative-wannabe? O, I forgot, I should not attach a label to something I do not understand.

When I read your post my first reaction was: ‘What a load of pompous garbage spewed under a veneer of pseudo intellectual venom’.
If your intention was to contribute to a discussion, why don’t you make your statement in a clear concise way without the venom? You can give the venom a dressing that you call ‘humour’, nevertheless, the venom is VERY obvious.
You really should not apologize for losing your humour in your last post, you can’t lose something that was not there to begin with. Hm, a wannabe-comedian as well? Oh, here I go again, attaching labels to something I cannot begin to fathom.

And as far as the Israeli-Palestinian matter is concerned: I cannot think of any lasting solutions other than separating the two parties involved, and I doubt anyone can.
But, since you depict Sharon as some kind of , may I point out the many suicide attacks on Israel, attacks which Palestinians STARTED during the negotiations, and to which Israelis reacted, the lack of cooperation on Arafat’s behalf in arresting terrorists, he does not do one damn thing, the fact that Israel offered the Palestinians their own land, their own state, and made some large concessions in this area. But did Arafat accept it and did he show a readiness to end the violence and start living in peace with his neighbour, trying to pick up the pieces and work on a new future?
Israel has tried everything possible, they tried left wing and right wing ‘solutions’, yet it seems the only thing the Palestinians & the fundamentalist forces in the Arab world (notice how I did not say ‘Arabs’? I did it especially for people like you Z6, who do not seem to be able to read between the lines) want is for Israel to disappear into the sea. So, what are the Jews to do? All they got is violence in return, no matter what they tried.
But, you, Z6, conveniently seemed to have forgotten all this. And there is so much more...

And yes, I know my enemy, you should take your own advice and take off your coloured glasses for a while, your ego is tainting the world in shades that cover up certain essential patches, mr expert.

And yes, I dare.

Joe: one country attacking another on the base of what they might do is indeed a frightening concept, but when you are facing someone with a track record of aggression, someone interested in restoring the Babylonian empire, someone who has connections with a nut that killed innocent people for the sake of his distorted belief in his god, are you going to sit back and wait until he has developed a nuclear arsenal? Over time the destructive powers of weaponry have accumulated, there are also biological weapons, are you going to risk the death of millions by letting a madman get his hands on these type of weapons? Consider the consequences of a passive attitude. Before 9/11 nobody thought such an attack could ever happen, if I came on this forum on 10/11 saying that if the USA would sit back and isolate itself one day it might find itself under attack because of the innate hatred of certain fanaticals in the world, Z6 would accuse me of mixing fantasy with reality.
Yet, it happened. And what’s more, if the USA does not remain vigilant, worse things are bound to happen.
We may not see it happening here in Holland, and yet we may. Already the fundamentalist Islamic aggression is making itself felt here in the shape of the AEL (the Arab European League), a political force that wants the shariah to be incorporated into Dutch law, meaning that if you steal a bread here, your hand will get chopped off. And yes, surprise, surprise, they also want to seen the state Israel annulled.
It is so true that democracy must be guarded by eternal vigilance, you cannot afford nodding off.

So, we are here at this forum, maybe sipping from our coffee or in my case some RedBull graemlins/tounge_images/icons/smile.gif , chatting about world affairs and what we would do, while we are not in any position of power and responsibility, so that makes it easy for us to conjecture about what would be best. But when the power is in your hands, and you are faced with the possible consequences of your decisions and your responsibility in these matters, what would you do, can you afford to gamble with the lives of millions? Sit back and wait to see what happens next?

Although I hate war (who in his right mind can like it?), I realize that sometimes it is inevitable. And you know in advance that it will cost lives, that innocent people will get killed, yet you also are aware of the fact that doing nothing will mean that many, many more people may lose their lives. I don’t think that is a time when you should be bluffing as a president or show indecisiveness, the stakes are too high.

OK, I have said enough about the subject, I must get back to work now.

lex
03-11-2003, 09:35 AM
vault and Jan, are you guys composers?

Alex

vaultcomplex
03-11-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by lex:
vault and Jan, are you guys composers?

Alex <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">I am, why?

johnkay
03-11-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Lewis:
Whats democratic about not counting votes correctly?<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Just a friendly note to say the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy---although it is founded upon democratic principles. And that has a big effect on how elections are held and determined.

John

ngstime
03-11-2003, 11:42 AM
We really should take look at France\'s peaceful approach, after all it worked for them when dealing with Hitler. Oh wait.... that was a different era, and Saddam is nothing like Hitler.... He hasn\'t tried to take over his neighbors or whip-out people of his own country. Imagine if Hitler had the \"BOMB\".... I\'m sure he would have only used it to protect the soverenty of his country. Saddam needs these weapons to protect himself from aggressors like Kuwait. I highly doubt Saddam would let W.O.M.D. fall in to the hands of Terrorist to use on US, after all, we\'re friends with Israel.
Perhaps the world should take a peaceful aproach like France, worse case is maybe terrorist takes one of Saddam\'s weapons and levels the US embassy in France along with half the country side, of course a attack outside of the arab world is unlikely....
Of course the real truth is the oil.... otherwise no one would bother with it.


Aaron Dirk

Jan
03-11-2003, 01:43 PM
vault and Jan, are you guys composers? <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Yup, me too

lex
03-11-2003, 03:09 PM
thanks for answering.

No special reason, I was just reading the thread an tought \"are these guys composers??\", so I asked..

Alex

Z6
03-11-2003, 04:30 PM
But, since you depict Sharon as some kind of , may I point out the many suicide attacks on Israel, attacks which Palestinians STARTED during the negotiations, and to which Israelis reacted..

Jan, may I point out that the world existed before Sharon was elevated to the post of numero uno murdering bastard in his country. He has been at it a long time; having to \'react\'. He is right up there with Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler and Pinochet and any number of murdering scum; but somehow these people always seem to garner support. I don\'t know why that is but I can see that you must.... You\'ll note the dates below. (The language seems a little biased, but then again, in Sharon\'s case it\'s hard not to be).

\"The Indict Sharon Now Campaign is an independent, international initiative to indict and prosecute former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon for war crimes and crimes against humanity spanning a half-century. These include, most notably, an attack Sharon led as an Israeli military officer on the West Bank village of Qibya in 1953, in which 69 civilians were murdered, and his role as the architect of Israel\'s brutal 1982 invasion of Lebanon. That invasion led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, massive displacement of the civilian population, and culminated in the infamous massacre of civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. The number of victims of this massacre--Palestinians and Lebanese alike--has never been officially documented. Israeli military intelligence estimated that 700 to 800 persons were killed, but others put the count much higher, up to 3,000 people.\"

Israel was blessed with a truly great leader - but he was murdered by an Israeli. If the U.S. stopped the backing of this murdering apartheid regime there might be hope of peace in the region. But I can see that really, a lot of people don\'t want peace.

It only takes a few weeks of propoganda to turn a country any which way. 60% of Americans now believe that Saddam is connected to Al Qaeda - these same people didn\'t even know who Saddam was until the Gulf war. They certainly don\'t know who most of the awful tyrants of today\'s world are, and they won\'t care until the media tells them to. In fact, in a recent \'test\' almost half of the American kids shown a map of the world without any labels couldn\'t point to America: this is not a trivial problem. It tells us more than we might want to know about a country that could wipe us all out.

Saudi Arabia is our friend - it\'s a wonderful place, a delightful regime where everyone is happy and contented, and you get to vote for who controls the TV zapper every night. They provided most of the 9/11 killers: they are our friends.

The US wants the oil. Bush wants to help his oil pals, but more than that, the West needs an unstable region. A man in a black hat. A place to sell arms. A place to cause deadly mischief. A place to point at. A place to be thankful that we\'re better than. A place to blame. Our world is run by small boys with big guns.

I hope the U.S. enjoys all this because it is the beginning of the end for the U.S. as we know it. They are trampling on the concept of international law. They are systematically destroying their own economy and spitting on their most cherished ideals. No matter how many happy analysts gleefully announce that the \'recession\' is ending, it won\'t change the reality that the economy is slowly coming apart. Greed and fear and corruption run too deep. Recent corporate scandals were most probably just the tip of the iceberg. Direct investment in the U.S has all but died. The dollar is in a tailspin. Interest rates are almost negative. The greatest stimulus package the world has even seen has hardly made a dent. Japan is, economically, in a mess. Germany\'s markets (and the rest of Europe) are worth a fraction of their value three years ago, so there isn\'t even an export sector left for U.S. economists to hope for in light of a \'light\' dollar. Even if 9/11 hadn\'t happened there were unstoppable forces at work. The new order will see the decline of the U.S. and the rise of China. It won\'t happen tomorrow but it will happen. I expect China won\'t be any better as \'the\' superpower.

All empires die for essentially the same reasons: arrogance and the cheapening of any human life not thought to be a part of that empire.

Well, Jan. I expect you\'ll have to sneer at me for imagining that I\'m an economic analyst as well now?

thesoundsmith
03-12-2003, 01:30 AM
I hope the U.S. enjoys all this because it is the beginning of the end for the U.S. as we know it. <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Z6, please don\'t lump the entire U.S in with that rabid fool. The majority of us don\'t agree with his plans, no matter what the government-sponsored polls say.

Of course, what do I know - I\'m from the Left Coast, and we\'re all a bunch of peacenik wusses anyway! images/icons/grin.gif

Dasher - fight for what\'s right, not for what\'s right-wing...

Z6
03-12-2003, 02:39 AM
[/QUOTE]Z6, please don\'t lump the entire U.S in with that rabid fool. The majority of us don\'t agree with his plans, no matter what the government-sponsored polls say.

Of course, what do I know - I\'m from the Left Coast, and we\'re all a bunch of peacenik wusses anyway! images/icons/grin.gif

Dasher - fight for what\'s right, not for what\'s right-wing... [/QB][/QUOTE]

The majority? I hope you\'re right. That\'s not the impression I get. But in the UK and Europe a massive majority are against this - but it makes no diference.

Jan
03-12-2003, 09:59 AM
Z6: No, no sneer this time.

You know, picking a biased article and lifting it\'s contents out of it’s context, isolating it from the circumstances leading up to the events described in the article, is just a way of creating your own version of reality in order to validate your own beliefs. Have you investigated what has led to the invasion of Lebanon in 1982? I cannot comment on the events in 1953 mentioned in the article, I am not a walking encyclopaedia. You talked about media induced propaganda to make you sway in a certain direction, well, the article you quoted is a beautiful example of that, objective journalism must be a concept alien to the writer of that article.

The whole problem with the Israeli-Palestinian matter is that there is always an event preceding it that explains the action following the event, and we can take that back several thousands of years, yet in doing so the past becomes your future, a straight jacket that will prevent both parties from any real change.
And the truth of it all? I think only God knows it.

If you accuse Sharon of having blood on his hands, do not turn the blind eye to the blood stained fingers of Arafat. Arafat declined the peace offering, he did not lift a finger to arrest terrorists, Arafat speaks with two tongues, one for his Arab brothers and one for the Western world, I really get the impression he does not want peace at all, he just wants to solve the problem by driving the Jews into the sea, something he hinted at during one of his speeches to his Arab brothers, recorded on video.

When I look back at the events of the recent years, it is constantly the Palestinians who begin the violence, even during the peace negotiations. It was not Israel who sent suicide bombers amidst the Palestinians, at first they even forfeited to strike back in order not to torpede the peace negotiations. Yet what are you to do when you see that nothing works, and the violence continues without Arafat trying to stop the terrorist activities? What can you do when the suicide bombers keep coming? Do you think Israel’s reaction would be different if Sharon was not in charge? I don’t think so, you would only see a different name, a different face striking back in the same way.
What I find hard to digest is that the accusing finger is always aimed at Israel.

Some of the things you say I agree with, other things not, but I cannot go into them. In your last post you touch so many subjects, if I were to respond to all of them I would typing until I have a grey beard, and life simply is too short for that. Besides that, my schedule does not allow it, so once again I’m signing off, duty calls.
Cheerio.

Z6
03-12-2003, 01:51 PM
Well, at least we agree about Arafat. You say, what can you do when the suicide bombers keep coming? Well, you can not murder innocent civilians in retaliation. That would be a start. And believe that they will keep coming. Suicide attacks auger the end of all hope. Killing innocent people in retaliation will not stop suicide bombers; it will increase their number; as well Sharon is aware. Why won\'t you separate the guilty from the innocent? I know that not all Israelis want to commit genocide but you seem quite happy with Sharon\'s strategy (incidentally, were he not the leader of a nation he most certainly would be be on trial for his crimes - being a leader of a nation means, handily for him, that you cannot be tried - and I\'m not referring to the fraud he committed in Israel, by the way; I\'m only talking about his murders and his collusion in murder).

Don\'t tell me that the Palestinians always start it, please. It\'s like blaming the black population of South Africa for trying to gain an equal footing in their own country. And it lumps every Palestinian into one single bad guy. I\'ve read many, many accounts of Israeli soldiers who were ordered to demolish villages where they were stationed for no reason at all except to incite those dreadful suicide attacks. Many Israeli soldiers were defying orders before the latest wave of violence. And give it a break about all that Israel going into the sea garbage. I have no idea what you\'re jabbering about. If you\'re trying to say that Israel and Palestine are enemies, then I think we already get that. You have some kind of agenda here. I do not. I do not want to see any more deaths and find none of it justified in any way. To see a justification in firing missiles into apartment blocks is to be a part of the genocide.

I\'ll say it again. No matter how bad the terrorist attacks are, there is no justification for killing innocent people just because they are of that \'race\'. Criminals have to be tried. And if they\'re dead, then they\'re dead, and that\'s it. 9/11 gave the Israeli government a live wire into the psyche of the world. \"That\'s what we\'ve had to suffer for years!\", they said.

You are not an encyclopedia, but I suggest you go buy one. Find out for yourself what Sharon is.

You see, it seems as if you believe that you and I have diametrically opposed views. We don\'t. There is a qualitative difference between taking a view that assumes control of a little red button that allows you to send thousands of people to their deaths and a view that desperately wants to avoid the deaths. These are not two sides of a coin.

If I could see one single event that we could all agree on that warranted something as awful as a war against one of the most dismal regimes in the world then I\'d perhaps accept military action be warranted. I don\'t know though, I believe that a country has to see imminent danger before such actions are taken.

South Korea is a more of a threat but nobody cares. Mugabe is starving his own people to death; nobody\'s bothered. A lot of money has been spent on negative PR for Saddam; he has plenty of oil, we have Israel and Palestine, and a whole mess of Middle Eastern promise, so there we go.

I just hope that some accusing fingers that actually matter start pointing at Israel the way they finally ended up pointing at South Africa.

Anyway, I\'m busy too. I\'m a home brewer and Yasser Arafat has kindly sent a pair of his old underpants for me to strain my scrumpy through. It does the job of aging the brew by at least five years, and provides a delightful aftertaste. So I\'m off.

thesoundsmith
03-14-2003, 12:42 AM
The majority? I hope you\'re right. That\'s not the impression I get. <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Nobody that I am personally acquainted with wants to go to war with Iraq,although most of us agree he should fold his tents and steal away. But I\'m in Calfornia, and we\'re much more left-leaning than the rest of the nation (on the coastline,anyway; drive 20 miles inland and it\'s redneck country-excuse me, HEARTLAND.)

The most recet poll showed 66% of Americans in favor of the war. But who conducted the poll? And where? And what were the criteria? (Only interview suits and construction workers...) True power in a democracy is wielded by those who count the votes.

I agree that America is in decline, both as a world power and as a place to live. Our two-party \'democratic\' system gives us little real choice. The attempt by Nader in 2000 to give us an option caused the loss of the election for the democrats. If Lyndon LaRouche or Pat Robertson had entered the race as a splinter party to funnel the far right like Nader did to the far left, things would have been different.

pantonality
03-14-2003, 03:59 PM
Man, there\'s nothing like a good political argument to get the blood flowing. Here\'s the problem, everything you know is wrong. It doesn\'t matter if the media you watch is in Iran or the US, they\'re all lying. Frankly I\'m amazed at how the Bush administration has cowed the US media. Check out this article for more information.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=195&row=0 (\"http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=195&row=0\")

As an example of this, one fallacy the press has tried to foist upon the American public is that the troops need to be used soon or they will lose their edge. In other words, now that we have 250,000 troops in place if we don\'t send them into combat soon they won\'t be emotionally prepared. I can certainly understand why the government doesn\'t want to maintain war readiness at this level for an extended period, it\'s expensive. But, doesn\'t that do a disservice to our servicemen and women to say they\'ll lose their emotional readiness for combat if they have to wait? Still, the networks and newspapers all said the same thing a week or so ago, Rumsfeld must have said something and everyone published it like it was Gospel and no one questioned it!

So all of you are arguing about stuff with wrong facts. I wouldn\'t necessarily trust the article cited above, the author I\'m sure has his own agenda to promote. But at least it\'s a dissenting opinion and up to now dissenting opinions are what have made the US a strong republic. At this time we don\'t have the benefit of a diversity of opinion and that causes me to be conconcerned about the health of our democracy. Every US citizen should be similarly concerned, unfortunately too many just accept what Rush Limbaugh says as Gospel. Too bad the news ain\'t good.

Steve Chandler
http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler (\"http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler\")
aka Ettienne
http://www.mp3.com/ettienne (\"http://www.mp3.com/ettienne\")