americans overseas
- Started
- Last post
- 74 Responses
- AD0
I agree with a lot vena said but if the main reason is the US securing oil - without so much as stating that oil has anything to do with it - and not cooperating with other powers - can you justify this war from a moral standpoint?
- unknown0
weren't we supposed to be ignoring UnitedStates' ?
C'mon everyone, play the game.
- UnitedStates0
josimar hates listening to facts that he disagrees with and instead would rather continue to live in his bubble of denial.
- unknown0
piss off ya nob.
i've already said, I never read anything you say... I don't know what the fuck you/this thread is about!
Don't flatter yourself - i just knew a thread titled with "america..." in it would have you talking your usual shite which I switched off from weeks ago... along with many others...
- stephen_pc0
once again, this is all reassuring. :)
- toolius0
Oil is the only reason they are going after Saddam.
Anyone who thinks any different has their head up their ass.
His weapons of mass destruction were OK with us when he was using them on kurds and Iranians but NOW all of the sudden it's a problem....riiiiight.
and I'm a flying hippo.
- vena0
actually, it wasn't OK with us when he used them against the kurds. that was one of the reasons NATO stepped in and started the undeclared gulf war.
as for iran, while Iraq was supplied with weapons and aid (they were seen by much of the world as victims at the time), we did petition for Saddam to face a war crimes tribunal for his tactics in that war.
look, you can morally disagree with this war. i definitely disagree with this war and all wars morally. but oil rights are, at most, one part of a bigger picture. ignoring everything else in the big picture is to have a pretty biased and malformed opinion. sure ignoring everything else and hoping nobody notices (this includes making stuff up because you don't know what you're talking about) is a quick way to get your point across, but if the means always justifies the ends, then you have no moral ground to stand on.
- ********0
Vena,
I think you might be an interesting and constructive debating partner on this matter.
A few questions, which are your (news/literature)sources?
I bought a few books a couple of days ago, one on the history of the Bush-"dynastie" and the (historical)influence of his southern background. And a book written by former UN weapon inspectors telling their story on the reasons/motivations the USA has in attacking Iraq. The last one is not too thick so will have it read in a couple of days...
I read a lot from different online/televised newssources...
You got any more suggestions?
(apart from Andrew Sullivan and Moore and the likes...?)I'd love to post more facts/opinions and hope we can debate them in a grown-up manner...'cuz it(war-threat+UN/NATO differences) really keeps me bothered, and I feel the urge to debate about it here....as you already noticed. :)
Also do I think we should weigh in the moral issues involving an imminent war and not only the economical consequences...whether only in US interest or not.
I am not anti-USA but noone can deny it is the US(gov.) who initiated this idea of a preemptive strike.
So, I want more sources, and if ever you state an important fact...back it up with a source if possible (name of book/link to site etc..)
thanks in advance,
- ********0
oh I will post the titles tomorrow...don't have em at hand right now.
:)
- vena0
gah stupid logout, lost my post.
ok, let's start over. when i read a news article, i look for the articles' sources and go to that. often, reporters won't read an entire article and end up quoting something that's contradicted later in the paper, or they will give sources that are impossible to trust (ie: 'a washington insider' which is seen so much recently).
most of what i've discussed so far is from the UN's 1990 report following imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. the thousands of gallons of botox, the confirmed weapons tests containing botox and aflatoxin, the weapon designs intended to reach targets up to 2,000 miles, genocide, cruelty; all are outlined in UN reports.
but it's fucking bland shit, man :) if anyone was home and i wasn't stuck being the only person in 10 miles who isn't a football fan, i wouldn't be arguing any of this :) the truth is, regardless of my moral beliefs on the subject - i don't know shit. nobody knows shit. we only know what we're told, so we assume the worst and everyone's lying to us. as i morally object to the current buildup and possible war in Iraq, i believe also that my moral objection, if realised, could result in much greater death in the future.
i distrust that 'washington insider' but why should i trust the UN? it's a paradox.
- ********0
" if anyone was home and i wasn't stuck being the only person in 10 miles who isn't a football fan, i wouldn't be arguing any of this "
just heard of it...did not even know about it...LOL!
True about the distrust....I share that sense more & more lately.
Ofcourse I have moral objections (obvious now I guess...), but I am trying to read more into the US reasoning for such strong military build up in that area, the motivations Bush has(as one of the (in)famous Bush fam.clan), but also from the perspective of UN inspectors.
Thing that worries me most now is the disinformation I get via the regular media (TV/Newspaper) from US representatives (such as the ones in Davos now)...one time saying it is about the weapons of mass destruction, other times stating it is their moral obligation to free the country of this violent dictator. Would love to see some clear motivations...such as showing the evidence the US claims is out there.
Anyway, to bed now....and dig somewhat deeper into my books...
;)
- vena0
i think part of the problem there with seemingly conflicting viewpoints is that most of us want to think of our government in a traditional, single entity manor. what we're truly faced with is a government that's increasingly permiated by media and becoming what it is: i large group of very different people. we have our figurehead president, but down the line of command there's difference. so it's not that we're getting conflicting opinions, but pieces of a bigger picture.
the president is going to tell the nation two things: what they want to hear, and what they need to hear to have confidence in the presidency. i don't think you will ever get the full story from a president, it's not in the cards for the position he's in. so, down the chain of command we get more opinions to factor the whole. i'm not saying we should inherantly distrust any of these people, just to take everything into consideration when you form your opinion.
i tend to trust the UN, though i know that trust is fairly baseless. so, while i can sit here and ramble off UN findings, someone else can post something they've read on zmag.org. only belief of the source tips the scales.
- ********0
..in short....really need sleep.
I have somewhat shown too much emotion in my posts in the last days here...but the whole issue made me read into it more.
In the following days I'd like to share facts rather then posing opinions only...
made me a bit exhausted, to be frank.
(and I should train my English skills a bit more... sheesh..)
;)
- vena0
also, i think people are overly eagre to link sept 11 and the current Iraq problem. they're linked, possibly, maybe, but at best by very thin threads.
september 11th was a relatively recent, ground shattering event, so it's on everyone's tongue and mind, but the problems in Iraq and US/NATO/UN involvement have been going on for over a decade. if anything, i'd have to say it's the media's shifting eye that has given the illusion of some kind of sudden action towards Iraq.
when i see people saying the Iraq situation is a result of US/UK attempt to milk 911, i have to wonder where they've been for the past 10 years.
- vena0
4cy: don't worry about it, i've been speaking english for 22 years and i can't spell for shit :) even the declaration of independance is rife with spelling errors, so i figure as long as the point gets across, screw proppor english in casual conversation.
- ********0
phew, thnx Vena!
I will slepe a hole lod moor confortaable nowe...
:P
(finding the right words is hard tho..sometimes...and often leads to misuderstanding and as a consequence needless bashing..)
- ********0
oh, I somewhere mentioned the US (possibly)violating the UN Sec. Council Res. 1441.
Let me clear up:
The US claims(together with UK) for a long period now they have evidence showing Saddam still owns weapons of mass destruction. But until today neither the US nor the UK handed over the evidence, which in itself is a violation of Res.1441, in which is stated each and everyone who has vital information on Iraq's status concerning possession of weapons of mass destruction, or materials to build them, is obliged to report/handover this info to the UN.
Now, the leaders of US and UK said this information was gathered via a highly secret source..and handing over the evidence would be irresponsible..
I have doubts...
any thoughts?
( and for gods sake, keep this thread constructive...no trolling... )
- finnpimp0
A little media theory. Pretty long post, so you might wanna grab a cup of coffee before starting..
The really interesting part in this conflict is the media's growing role in telling the truth. It was pretty big already in Gulf'91, but now it has even more power - and guys with agendas behind the scenes.
Since everything in the media - even the news - is a subjective observation of what is going on, I encourage you to be on the lookout for media-trickery in news broadcasts if this conflict escalates. Manipulation and white lies are laid so thick over what we see that it's almost impossible to miss. But be focused on what the footage in news are "saying", what do the reporters want to tell by showing those tanks rolling away into the sunset? Or displaying that black'n'white smartbomb-cam smashing into a bunker?
This is a prime opportunity to learn how the masses tick and how one can shape the truth to fit into an agenda. Could come in handy if you're into advertisement. :)
For example.. In Gulf'91, when Saddam torched all those oil wells in Kuwait and spilled it around, news agencys showed that combined with footage from the Exxon Valdez-oil spill from '89, showing some poor birds trying to get loose from that sticky oil.
No-one noticed anything until someone pointed out that those birds don't live in the middle-east region. Whoops.
But why did media show it then? Think about it. Desert Storm was a military success, but a political fiasco. Saddam was still alive and kickin' in his bunker, so it was time to amp up the public support; this time the environmentalists. Since environmentalists are usually pacifistic (or at least anti-war), they needed some reason to also say "Goddamn that's right, bomb that nature-destroyng tyrant's ass".
Yeah well, just an example. Keep your eyes peeled ppl. Hope you enjoyed the little lesson.
markus aka. _fp
- ********0
good word, pimp..
There are more examples...I will look 'em up.
(btw..I had tea while reading it..ok?)
- finnpimp0
sure, tea is ok, as long as it's lemon and doesn't have milk.
dunno about you, but yea, over here some people like milk in their tea.. hmm.
talking about examples, there was the cnn crew in '91 that got placed on a warship, which was somewhere totally off in the persian gulf, basicly very far away from the action, and they were told they're close to the combat zone.
the cameras were rolling, a couple of fighter jets flew over, everybody looked to be in a awful hurry.. wham, the picture was perfect. "We are now reporting to you live from the heat of the action" etc.
But don't quote me on that, I don't have facts to back it up. The words of our italian professor in journalism. I'm just a mindlesss drone. :)