My grandfather once told me,
"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see."
I still haven't decided which half though.
"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see."
I still haven't decided which half though.
Where is all this money I'm supposed to be able to tap into? Did I miss that secret message after my circumcision?
The vast majority of the world's largest companies are publicly traded. It's silly to say ANY one group, Jews, Episcopalians, Dutch, whatever, "own" these companies. or "run" them. Except, of course, the oil production companies, which are overwhelmingly owned by Jews like the Kashoggis and the Sauds. And those Omani Jews and Kuwaiti Jews...
Hey, while I'm asking, how come we got the only bit of land in the Middle East that doesn't have oil? A British plot?
The vast majority of the world's largest companies are publicly traded. It's silly to say ANY one group, Jews, Episcopalians, Dutch, whatever, "own" these companies. or "run" them. Except, of course, the oil production companies, which are overwhelmingly owned by Jews like the Kashoggis and the Sauds. And those Omani Jews and Kuwaiti Jews...
Hey, while I'm asking, how come we got the only bit of land in the Middle East that doesn't have oil? A British plot?
Off-topic
I realise this is the dedicated area for off-topic threads, but it seems to have itself gone off-topic. Could we please revert to the discussion of the war that is about to happen, rather than working ourselves up into starting another one?
I realise this is the dedicated area for off-topic threads, but it seems to have itself gone off-topic. Could we please revert to the discussion of the war that is about to happen, rather than working ourselves up into starting another one?
I usually try to stay out of political discussions on the net. In
this case I made an exception, and I have been very clearly
reminded of why I ususlly do stay out.
In other cases, whether it is audio or something else being
discussed, this is one of the most friendly places I have seen
on the whole internet. If somebody who has severe difficulties
with the english language posts something almost
incomprehensible, not a single person will complain about the
bad language, but rather some people will show their patience
and willingness to help by trying to understand what this
person means. If sombody makes a mistake, claiming something
which is wrong, nobody will say that he/she is an idiot, but
usually rather point out politely that it is incorrect. Etc, etc ...
Suddenly, in this thread, it all changes. Posting is like walking
through a minefield. No matter what you say, no matter how
you formulate it, somebody will find a way to interpret it to
their dislike and in a way you did not intend. I have even
received a complaint by email about a formulation in one of
my postings, which I think would not have caused any
misinterpretation in another context.
When I stepped into this discussion, I did it in an attempt at
exchanging views and information with people elsewhere,
trying to figure out if and why the opinions differ so much in
this case. It seems the US is the only country where a majority
of the population is for an attack on Iraq. Hence, it is interesting
to try finding out why. Is it because of cultural differences, is it
because of differences in the media coverage, or ...? I admit I
have deliberately been slightly (not more, I hope) provokative
in some of my questions, but only for the purpose of trying to
provoke people to try answering instead of neglecting my
questions. A few of my questions have been answered, most
of them seem to remain unanswered. Yet, I have learnt a great
deal more about the state of affairs and the discussion has
made me both think a little bit more about it and dig somewhat
deeper into the media stream. Of course one can put together
a list of strange conclusions, like SY did, although it probably
did take quite a twisted logic in many cases. However, one can
also do the opposite, and try to get some constructive information
out of the thread. I hope I am not the only one who has tried to
do so.
I don't know. Maybe we should better all stay out of discussing
politics on this forum, or we can try to get this discussion back
on track, trying to learn something from each other and about
each other. So, if we continue, let us all try to raise the level
of tolerance a bit, not treating everything as an insult to you as
a person, to your nation or to whatever. Similarily, also try to
keep the aggression level down, so there is less reason to
intepret what you write as hostile. If I have offended somebody,
somebodys country, somebodys president, somebodys pet animal
or whatever, please accept my apoligies.
this case I made an exception, and I have been very clearly
reminded of why I ususlly do stay out.
In other cases, whether it is audio or something else being
discussed, this is one of the most friendly places I have seen
on the whole internet. If somebody who has severe difficulties
with the english language posts something almost
incomprehensible, not a single person will complain about the
bad language, but rather some people will show their patience
and willingness to help by trying to understand what this
person means. If sombody makes a mistake, claiming something
which is wrong, nobody will say that he/she is an idiot, but
usually rather point out politely that it is incorrect. Etc, etc ...
Suddenly, in this thread, it all changes. Posting is like walking
through a minefield. No matter what you say, no matter how
you formulate it, somebody will find a way to interpret it to
their dislike and in a way you did not intend. I have even
received a complaint by email about a formulation in one of
my postings, which I think would not have caused any
misinterpretation in another context.
When I stepped into this discussion, I did it in an attempt at
exchanging views and information with people elsewhere,
trying to figure out if and why the opinions differ so much in
this case. It seems the US is the only country where a majority
of the population is for an attack on Iraq. Hence, it is interesting
to try finding out why. Is it because of cultural differences, is it
because of differences in the media coverage, or ...? I admit I
have deliberately been slightly (not more, I hope) provokative
in some of my questions, but only for the purpose of trying to
provoke people to try answering instead of neglecting my
questions. A few of my questions have been answered, most
of them seem to remain unanswered. Yet, I have learnt a great
deal more about the state of affairs and the discussion has
made me both think a little bit more about it and dig somewhat
deeper into the media stream. Of course one can put together
a list of strange conclusions, like SY did, although it probably
did take quite a twisted logic in many cases. However, one can
also do the opposite, and try to get some constructive information
out of the thread. I hope I am not the only one who has tried to
do so.
I don't know. Maybe we should better all stay out of discussing
politics on this forum, or we can try to get this discussion back
on track, trying to learn something from each other and about
each other. So, if we continue, let us all try to raise the level
of tolerance a bit, not treating everything as an insult to you as
a person, to your nation or to whatever. Similarily, also try to
keep the aggression level down, so there is less reason to
intepret what you write as hostile. If I have offended somebody,
somebodys country, somebodys president, somebodys pet animal
or whatever, please accept my apoligies.
Re: Guys, guys...
I agree, Things are getting off topic...
Lisandro, My own personal favorite quote:
"You have the right to your opinion, as wrong as it may be!"
🙂 🙂 🙂
I fear the interesting portion of this thread has passed it's time... ...much like world politics, too much bickering and too little action. 🙂 🙂
-Dan
Interesting to note, many of the same people who argue in this thread also do so in other threads... ...myself not excluded! A very opinionated group we are!
Lisandro_P said:
I agree, Things are getting off topic...
Lisandro, My own personal favorite quote:
"You have the right to your opinion, as wrong as it may be!"
🙂 🙂 🙂
I fear the interesting portion of this thread has passed it's time... ...much like world politics, too much bickering and too little action. 🙂 🙂
-Dan
Interesting to note, many of the same people who argue in this thread also do so in other threads... ...myself not excluded! A very opinionated group we are!
Sy - very funny, LOL, sincerely. Some much needed relief of tension, thanks mate!
PinkMouse - moderating a forum must seem like a thankless task. Allow me for one to say I appreciate the commitment and effort. FWIW, I think you handled things very well. Selfless, altruistic people like you are rare, and people should consider that without such people this kind of forum would not exist.
There was a televised interview/debate on the BBC tonight. Tony Blair facing questions from the British public. Obviously a TV audience is really too small a sample to draw conclusions, but I'm going to anyway! I would say that Mr Blair was left with the very firm impression that without a further UN resolution, the British people will not support military action. But with a further resolution, they will. This also is the opinion of most people I talk to over here. I think he will now seek a further resolution, but obviously this will take some time. Meanwhile, the US administration seems pretty much 'ready to go' in the very near future without a further resolution. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. (I've just re-read this paragraph and realise it sounds rather analytical, considering many lives are at stake.)
I have come to accept that this war is inevitable. It is going to begin very soon, a matter of weeks, in order to fit in with the US elections. Tony Blair has stated that war can still be avoided if Saddam finally co-operates, and that the aim is disarmament, but I believe that President Bush & the US for whatever reason need a regime change. So I think now whatever Saddam does there will be war. I was actually just watching one of the US news channels. The USAF officer who planned Distant Thunder (the air campaign which preceded Desert Storm), was talking, and he said he was 99% confident they would get Saddam, although if Saddam suddenly started to co-operate fully that would create some problems!
On another note, thanks to lawriebuck for posting the link about US Dollar vs. Euro as the world's dominant currency - absolutely fascinating! Almost made me support the Euro (but not quite.....)
PinkMouse - moderating a forum must seem like a thankless task. Allow me for one to say I appreciate the commitment and effort. FWIW, I think you handled things very well. Selfless, altruistic people like you are rare, and people should consider that without such people this kind of forum would not exist.
There was a televised interview/debate on the BBC tonight. Tony Blair facing questions from the British public. Obviously a TV audience is really too small a sample to draw conclusions, but I'm going to anyway! I would say that Mr Blair was left with the very firm impression that without a further UN resolution, the British people will not support military action. But with a further resolution, they will. This also is the opinion of most people I talk to over here. I think he will now seek a further resolution, but obviously this will take some time. Meanwhile, the US administration seems pretty much 'ready to go' in the very near future without a further resolution. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. (I've just re-read this paragraph and realise it sounds rather analytical, considering many lives are at stake.)
I have come to accept that this war is inevitable. It is going to begin very soon, a matter of weeks, in order to fit in with the US elections. Tony Blair has stated that war can still be avoided if Saddam finally co-operates, and that the aim is disarmament, but I believe that President Bush & the US for whatever reason need a regime change. So I think now whatever Saddam does there will be war. I was actually just watching one of the US news channels. The USAF officer who planned Distant Thunder (the air campaign which preceded Desert Storm), was talking, and he said he was 99% confident they would get Saddam, although if Saddam suddenly started to co-operate fully that would create some problems!
On another note, thanks to lawriebuck for posting the link about US Dollar vs. Euro as the world's dominant currency - absolutely fascinating! Almost made me support the Euro (but not quite.....)
Dr. Hamsa
former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program was just on the radio here in the NYC area -- WABC 770 a.m.
Iraq was within a year of having a nuclear weapon prior to the invasion of Kuwait. They never abandoned the quest.
former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program was just on the radio here in the NYC area -- WABC 770 a.m.
Iraq was within a year of having a nuclear weapon prior to the invasion of Kuwait. They never abandoned the quest.
Sorry, Christer, just my warped sense of humor and my boundless cynicism. My father once told me that it's easy enough to laugh at yourself, but the true secret to happiness in life is the ability to laugh at others.
SY said:
No need to apologize SY. Several of the things on you list were
quite funny, even if you had to twist things a bit. It wasn't clear,
though, if you meant it just as a joke, or if it was meant as a
sarcasm about peoples ignorance in the thread.
Both, really, though it's normally more a matter of gullibility rather than ignorance. I can draw an analogy to audio there, but I'll leave that one alone!
Maxwell said:
I think this is where people in the US see things differently than Western Europeans. (At any rate, this goes for the people I've talked to here -- this is a country of 280 million, after all, and I wouldn't want to presume to speak for all of them.) We think that going to war is either the right thing to do or it isn't. But whether or not there's a UN resolution will depend on diplomatic wrangling: basically, if France, Russia, and China get what they want, there'll be a second resolution. If not, there won't. If the war is fundamentally wrong, it will still be wrong even if Bush manages to buy or bully enough votes for a UN resolution. And if it's right, then it will still be right whether or not Chirac chooses to admit it.
Or course, this leaves the question. Is going to war the right thing to do? Most of us feel deeply conflicted: on the one hand, we can't in good conscience protest against the liberation of the Iraqi people. The status quo must end, and any solution which winds up with the people of Iraq crushed between a brutal dictatorship and punative international sanctions is no solution at all. On the other hand, nobody wants to go to war, and we wish to hell that someone would hurry up and think of a solution that didn't involve thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, along with hundreds or thousands of Americans (and that's an optimistic estimate of the costs).
We've heard lots about what shouldn't be done. Any ideas about what should be done?
traderbam said:
The reason for the difference is that Iraq has already acknowleged that they have tons of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. The job of the inspectors is to verify that status of the materials that Iraq has already admitted they have, not try and play detective in a country the size of California.
In order for Iraq to comply with UN directives they need to show either where the weapons of mass destruction and programs to create them are or else show how they were destroyed. It is too late to try and claim they never existed.
Phil
Maxwell said:
Downunder, with parliament resuming this week, we had some fairly passionate (for Aussie politicians anyway) debate regarding Australia's involvement in this war-to-be.
It would seem that the Aussie public are taking the same line as the Brits, ie. without UN support for the war Australian Forces should not be deployed. (Ooops, too late!)
The US Ambassador to Australia couldn't stand by when the Labor Party, currently in opposition had a go at George Dubya in Parliament:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/National/story_7350.asp
and for a more cynical view: (These guys are over the top in my opinion)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/wecontrolamerica/hornet.html
Scroll down to the update section.
🙂
lawriebuck said:
Here in country NSW, I know of no one who supports military action in Iraq as presently slated, and few even with UN backing.
I stand and applaud the Senate for the no-confidence motion on little Johnny.
Poor diddums. You know how desperate the PR battle has become when they have to resort to such a major breach in diplomacy as that. The fact is W and his cronies are dangerous buffoons, and lots of people see that, especially down here where we are far, far less likely to wrap ourselves in the flag. This action will do nothing more than incite those radicals to do more, and the more centrist to lean towards their views. Long term, this could end up being a 30mm cannon shell to the foot of both Australia and the US.
Watch out Simon, that they don't try to do a Gough on you.
I don't think it's cynical at all, nor do I feel it's over the top. It's simply stating the truth as he sees it, and very to the point, without any mincing of words.
I call a spade a spade, and don't normally give a tinkers cuss what anyone else thinks, and I agree that if John Howard is acting in breach of the Constitution then that's a criminal matter. I'm not a lawyer, but I know a couple of good ones and will ask. I'll also research the Constitution myself.
Way too many Australians have died in other people's wars, gone with good hearts and intentions to help, and paid too high a price. No more, not for this one.
[sidebar: just so there is no confusion, I support our military personel 100%, just not the moron that orders them around.]
As the bumper sticker says, Don't blame me, <i>I</i> didn't vote for him.
The more these political machinations go on, the more I've come to respect the New Zealanders for their brave stand against US nuclear warships being allowed in their waters. This has allowed them to be seen as forthright, independent in their thinking, and not easily liable to being bullied around. A lesson our pollies would do well to learn.
<b>There they are, a Conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of politics</b>
Definitely thine line of the century so far in Aussie politics.
Brett said:
Yeah, I marvelled at the thought of being able to ditch the little brown-noser. I studied the Constitution once, and was awed by it's simplicity. It is so well written, not bogged down in the crap and legalese of today's legislation. My interpretation of the particular sections leads me to believe there's a pretty valid argument.
The Australian Constitution
Section 44 - Disqualification
Any person who-
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & priveleges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.....shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
Any other Aussies (or our friends from around the world 🙂 ) have an opinion on this?
🙂
Hi Rob from San Diego
When I first read your post it really wound me up. It seemed to show that this whole thread had accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of trying to make it clear why many people all over the world are so worried by recent developments in US foreign policy.
Then I re-read your post several times and decided that probably we aren't so far apart in our views, and it is your language/rhetoric that sets off alarm bells. (In my opinion of course). So this post isn't intended as any kind of an attack on you or your fellow countrymen who have participated in this open and free debate. It is a heartfelt request to please stop and think for a minute, and ask yourself 'why can it be that we are being criticised seemingly from all corners of the world when we are just standing up and doing the right thing - doing what needs to be done?'
Absolutely
This makes it sound like you actually believe that you can unilaterally determine 'the right thing to do'. Most people in Western Europe no longer have the confidence (arrogance?) to assume that they can do that. They will have an opinion on what they *think* is the right thing to do. But they won't delude themselves that by declaring something to be 'the right thing to do' it becomes so. They would discuss it with others. They would not discount the opinion of the rest of the world.
This makes it sound like you view the United Nations as an irrelevance, a nuisance. The fact is, the *only* body which can legitimise military action against Iraq is the UN. Just saying 'its the right thing to do' doesn't make it legitimate
If you go to war without a further UN resolution, it won't be just Chirac who thinks you're doing the wrong thing, it will be, for instance, the majority of the British people. There is a UN resolution which endorses the use of miltary force if Iraq is in material breach of earlier resolutions. But whether or not Iraq is in breach is a matter of opinion (I believe he is by the way). It is not for any one country to decide whether Iraq is in breach, it is for the UN to decide.
If a country takes military action against another country without UN backing, then that is an act of military aggression. It is a violation of international law. What if all the people of Iraq decided that:
'invading America is the right thing to do. It will still be right whether or not President Bush chooses to admit it. Just because we can't cut a deal with the UN to pass a resolution endorsing our invasion, that's not going to stop us. If something is fundamentally right then it is still right even if the whole rest of the world says its wrong. Its right because we *know* its right, and we're going to stick two fingers up at the rest of the world and the UN....'
When Bush says we'd welcome another resolution but he's going to invade another sovereign nation with or without one, then in the eyes of many people around the world the US is in danger of becoming a rogue state.
Right now you are the world's most powerful military nation. The fact is that you can do pretty much whatever you want. That's extremely scarey. People in other countries look at your newspapers and your TV and to us they look so biased and naive it would be laughable if it wasn't scarey. You are being given just one side of the argument. Many people in Iraq might view you as liberators, but many of them won't. Please don't be under any illusions that the outcome of this will be a free, united, happy, peaceful and prosperous Iraq. In the Gulf War, the Iraqi soldiers largely refused to fight to hold on to Quwait. But now they will be fighting to defend their country and their homes and their wives and children. I think the outcome of this war is more likely to be a defeated and embittered people.
My Dad served in the RAF alongside the USAF. My girlfriend's brother was born in the states and served in the USAF in the Gulf War. I used to think America was great. Actually, mostly I still do. My first car was an old (1967) Mustang convertible. I vacationed in the US just last month. Please stop and ask yourself why someone like me is so worried about the behaviour of your country that he is wasting his Saturday morning typing this.
If there has to be military action, let it be a wide coalition of nations with the unambiguous support of the UN. That way there may be some justification for us to at least *hope* that we are doing the right thing.
When I first read your post it really wound me up. It seemed to show that this whole thread had accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of trying to make it clear why many people all over the world are so worried by recent developments in US foreign policy.
Then I re-read your post several times and decided that probably we aren't so far apart in our views, and it is your language/rhetoric that sets off alarm bells. (In my opinion of course). So this post isn't intended as any kind of an attack on you or your fellow countrymen who have participated in this open and free debate. It is a heartfelt request to please stop and think for a minute, and ask yourself 'why can it be that we are being criticised seemingly from all corners of the world when we are just standing up and doing the right thing - doing what needs to be done?'
Absolutely
This makes it sound like you actually believe that you can unilaterally determine 'the right thing to do'. Most people in Western Europe no longer have the confidence (arrogance?) to assume that they can do that. They will have an opinion on what they *think* is the right thing to do. But they won't delude themselves that by declaring something to be 'the right thing to do' it becomes so. They would discuss it with others. They would not discount the opinion of the rest of the world.
This makes it sound like you view the United Nations as an irrelevance, a nuisance. The fact is, the *only* body which can legitimise military action against Iraq is the UN. Just saying 'its the right thing to do' doesn't make it legitimate
If you go to war without a further UN resolution, it won't be just Chirac who thinks you're doing the wrong thing, it will be, for instance, the majority of the British people. There is a UN resolution which endorses the use of miltary force if Iraq is in material breach of earlier resolutions. But whether or not Iraq is in breach is a matter of opinion (I believe he is by the way). It is not for any one country to decide whether Iraq is in breach, it is for the UN to decide.
If a country takes military action against another country without UN backing, then that is an act of military aggression. It is a violation of international law. What if all the people of Iraq decided that:
'invading America is the right thing to do. It will still be right whether or not President Bush chooses to admit it. Just because we can't cut a deal with the UN to pass a resolution endorsing our invasion, that's not going to stop us. If something is fundamentally right then it is still right even if the whole rest of the world says its wrong. Its right because we *know* its right, and we're going to stick two fingers up at the rest of the world and the UN....'
When Bush says we'd welcome another resolution but he's going to invade another sovereign nation with or without one, then in the eyes of many people around the world the US is in danger of becoming a rogue state.
Right now you are the world's most powerful military nation. The fact is that you can do pretty much whatever you want. That's extremely scarey. People in other countries look at your newspapers and your TV and to us they look so biased and naive it would be laughable if it wasn't scarey. You are being given just one side of the argument. Many people in Iraq might view you as liberators, but many of them won't. Please don't be under any illusions that the outcome of this will be a free, united, happy, peaceful and prosperous Iraq. In the Gulf War, the Iraqi soldiers largely refused to fight to hold on to Quwait. But now they will be fighting to defend their country and their homes and their wives and children. I think the outcome of this war is more likely to be a defeated and embittered people.
My Dad served in the RAF alongside the USAF. My girlfriend's brother was born in the states and served in the USAF in the Gulf War. I used to think America was great. Actually, mostly I still do. My first car was an old (1967) Mustang convertible. I vacationed in the US just last month. Please stop and ask yourself why someone like me is so worried about the behaviour of your country that he is wasting his Saturday morning typing this.
If there has to be military action, let it be a wide coalition of nations with the unambiguous support of the UN. That way there may be some justification for us to at least *hope* that we are doing the right thing.
Well, laurieback and Brett,
I, as an Australian and as a Citizen of this world am fully supportive of what you said.
I personally think that this "Holy" trio - GTJ, is a bunch of criminals, that Little Johnny is definitely serving foregn interests, completely disregarding the opinion of the Australian people and doing what his mates tell him to do - what does one expect from a little man.
It's time for us to say:
We do not trust this government anymore, we want a change, NOW! And most of all we want PEACE!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steves...ica/hornet.html
Excellent! Everyone should read it.
Thank you lawrieback.
Stan - the revolutionary
I, as an Australian and as a Citizen of this world am fully supportive of what you said.
I personally think that this "Holy" trio - GTJ, is a bunch of criminals, that Little Johnny is definitely serving foregn interests, completely disregarding the opinion of the Australian people and doing what his mates tell him to do - what does one expect from a little man.
It's time for us to say:
We do not trust this government anymore, we want a change, NOW! And most of all we want PEACE!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steves...ica/hornet.html
Excellent! Everyone should read it.
Thank you lawrieback.
Stan - the revolutionary
- Status
- Not open for further replies.