The Toll Grows Higher and Higher -6,100 to 7,800 have been killed. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2003, 08:10 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Europeans and others claimed that Israel had massacred 7,000 Civilians at Jenin.
Ah, yes all those hundreds of millions Europeans, brought together in a common argument. To the last one.

Generalizations like this make me stop reading and hit the back button.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-22-2003, 11:01 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:15 PM
It is not a generalization that there were Europeans, Palestinians and various human rights organizations that claimed that the Israely Defense force massacred civilians, as many as 7,000 by some estimates, at Jenin. The UN investigation prove their allegations to be wrong and way off the mark. Only 48 civilians died at Jenin, none from execution.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 03:53 AM   #18
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
iacrobat,

Detailed forensic studies of the victims can help to determine how they died and from what. This was done in Jenin back in the Spring of 2002. Palestinians, Europeans and others claimed that Israel had massacred 7,000 Civilians at Jenin. The UN forensic teams later determined that only 48 civilians had been killed, and none had been executed but appeared to have died as result of being caught in the crossfire between Israely troops and Palestinian terrorist. Its not perfect, but news media reports are so often inaccurate. A Mass Grave with thousands of bodies tells the real story. These are being found in multiple area's of Iraq and tell the true story of Saddam's brutality which is too often ignored by many.
Hmmm...then how do you choose what to believe?

And I think Klaus is right when he says that the truth lies between the pentagon and al-jazeera. I am inclined to trust al-jazeera more than the pentagon.

Al-jazeera has political motives, but not the pentagon, not CNN and every other American network??

I think it is incredibly naive to think that pentagon has only the peace and prosperity of the world in mind. I you meant to say the peace and properity of America, and I add, at every expense.

It is easy for us to sit here and measure evil, we kill less, so we aren't so bad. Less civilians are dying during American rule, so America is not so bad as Saddam.

Try to explain our paper logic to the mother of that boy (let's assume it is true that there is at least on civilian dead). To us there is a difference, to her there is no difference. I have difficulty reconciling this with the measurements of evil that we make.

There should not be anything we say that can justify that child's death. If you are going to justify it to me, you must imagine justifying it to the mother.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 05:22 AM   #19
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Sthing:
You're right,Saddam is most responsible for the situation down there, but that dosn't make the US innocent victims of the situation.

"
The reason the people in Iraq have a chance for a brighter future is because of the policies of the Bush administration. The policies of the French and German governments would have left them under the brutal rule of Saddam. "

I think Saddam was old, he was so old that we could expect a regime change in the near future anyway. And if it wasn't for the WMDs or the imminent access to the iraqi oil it would have bin easier (after we waited THAT long) to just do something to break the dictatorship of the baath party then - but that's a personal opinion

And i don't think it's legitimate for anybody to start a war to force any country to sell anything to a price we like.
War for economical reasons is on the same level as killing someone for money. And in that case the rich one shot at the poor one to get even more money.

" We know how the Blue Helmets did in Bosnia. That sat around and watched 250,000 people be slaughtered until the United States took action to stop the war. Security and enforcement of the rule of law require more than lightly armed Blue Helmets. "

I didn't say that the UN blue helmets were perfect they did wrong things and will do wrong things in the future, but i think their actions have a better history than the US regime changes after WW2. Every human organisation (and therefore the UN and every Government) make mistakes, even today but i think the uniliteral US approach is just worse then the UN approach - neither one is perfect.

" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"

As iacrobat i can see clearly political motives in the Pentagon. Do you really think that Just care about freedom and prosperity of the planet?
So they are even better than Greenpeace and ai?

"There is only blood on Saddam's hands ...

No by killing somebody in preventory self defence the blood is on your hands. You had the choice ot do so or to do it in a different way.

""and its amazing how many in the anti-war crowd give him on pass on this by never mentioning him."

If you look at the past of the ai-urgent actions ai tried to focus on Saddam for a verry long time, i think he's an issue since i am a member of ai.
Just because the public didn't want to hear our Saddam Bashing in the past dosn't mean that we ignored him.
Now Saddam is without big influence on the future. So i'll mention his crimes if anyone would tell me that he wasn't that bad. But i think it's common sense on FYM that Saddam was a cruel dictator who violated human rights for a long time.

" There were large numbers of people in Iraq that celebrated the liberation if you remember what happened with the Saddam statute"

I'm sure some people chered, i'd cheer too if i live in Iraq, because Saddam is gone. But that dosn't mean that they welcome the US and the UK troops. That's a big difference.

"Where was the Pentagon proven wrong in the latest war?"

I remember reports that the allied got control over cities 2-3 times to early. I remember that they found WMDs allready. I remember that they reported that Soldiers acted in self defense and reported shootings from that direction (for example against Journalists) until video footage proved them wrong

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:35 AM   #20
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 10:15 AM
" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"
This is the biggest joke I've ever seen on this board. While the men and women serving in the Military fall into this category, The Pentagon and DOD upper teams look out for:

1. Themselves and their continued prosperity - ie. defense spending and maintaining military superiority.

2. American superiority on earth.

They could give a shit about Burma for example, unless it worked into their plans.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 02:17 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,201
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Sting,

I know Iraq wasn't going to turn into Orlando in 6 months, BUT - if you will remember before the war started, Republicans in the administration and on the news channels all were saying how we will be in and out of there in no time, we will be greeted with cheers, and within a year everything will be great and stable and a better life and world for Iraq and the Middle east.

Well that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Lots of people questioned our exit strategy before going to war. That question was never answered and now we are paying for it. (literally)

My problem with war to begin with was not just giving more time for the inspectors, but to give us more time to actually have a decent plan and to do it right. I think tens of billions of dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted, and lives lost because of this misstep.

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:08 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Klaus,

"You're right,Saddam is most responsible for the situation down there, but that dosn't make the US innocent victims of the situation."

The only guilt the USA should have is that it did not act sooner to bring down the regime of Saddam

"I think Saddam was old, he was so old that we could expect a regime change in the near future anyway. And if it wasn't for the WMDs or the imminent access to the iraqi oil it would have bin easier (after we waited THAT long) to just do something to break the dictatorship of the baath party then - but that's a personal opinion"

This is not the 18th century. Being 67, especially a 67 year old head of state is not old. In any event, even if he was old by 21st century standards, that issue is irrelevant. The one thing worse than Saddam leading Iraq would be Iraq led by one of his sons or senior level officials. Barring that the only other possibility would have been a civil war which would be just as terrible a senerio for regional and global security. Saddam's regime would have stayed in place with or without him. The only thing that could remove his regime was outside military force. The events of the past 24 years prove that. To better understand Saddam's regime and what made it so powerfull and impossible to overthrow from within, I suggest you read the "Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack.

"And i don't think it's legitimate for anybody to start a war to force any country to sell anything to a price we like.
War for economical reasons is on the same level as killing someone for money. And in that case the rich one shot at the poor one to get even more money."

The USA did not start the war for Iraq to sell oil at any price. Iraq has often turned off the pumps entirely during the 1990s. The issue was Saddams behavior + WMD and how failing to disarm Saddam would have tragic consequences for the whole region and the world economy. War for economical reasons is war for Standard of living. It is a war to prevent poverty! In this case, a level of global poverty not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It would be one of the most immoral and tragic events to allow Saddam to re-arm and potentially throw the world into a vast economic depression not seen since the 1930s, through invasions and attacks using WMD or other means in this vital energy resource rich region of the world. A War for economic reasons in this part of the world is in fact, on a large scale, an attempt to head of a humanitarian disaster, which is what 1930s economic depression would be for the planet.

"I didn't say that the UN blue helmets were perfect they did wrong things and will do wrong things in the future, but i think their actions have a better history than the US regime changes after WW2. Every human organisation (and therefore the UN and every Government) make mistakes, even today but i think the uniliteral US approach is just worse then the UN approach - neither one is perfect."

The US did not take a unilateral approach in regards to Iraq. Unilateral means ALONE! There are currently 29 countries contributing troops, civil affairs personal, and other things to situation in Iraq. In the war, British, Australian troops fought along side US troops. This was not a unilateral action. In addition, United Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all backed the military operation. Just because Germany was not apart of the operation does not mean it was unilateral.

"As iacrobat i can see clearly political motives in the Pentagon. Do you really think that Just care about freedom and prosperity of the planet?
So they are even better than Greenpeace and ai?"

The Pentagon does not decide US foreign Policy. That is the job of the US State Department and the Executive Branch of the US government with the approval of the Congressional Branch. The Pentagon enforces the Foreign Policy that is decided upon by the State Department and US government. The Men and Women of the US military serve their country and often risk their lives. They do so for low pay that is not based on any sort of profit. Members of the US military obey the orders of the President and US State Department. The only influence they have is on how to fight a war or what forces and weapons are needed to fight this war or that war. The Pentagon does not make the decision to go to war or not to go to war. They are in the business of serving the United States and the international security and have done more for Peace, prosperity, and the stability of the world than any other organization in history over the past 60 years.


"No by killing somebody in preventory self defence the blood is on your hands. You had the choice ot do so or to do it in a different way."

WRONG! Saddam is the only one with blood on his hands. If there were anyone else with blood on their hands besides him, it would be the countries that decided to stand and do nothing when they had the oportunity to solve the problem. Its not the first time Europe has failed to act. Europe started two World Wars and allowed the massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo to happen. It appears that many European countries have failed to learn these lessons.

"But i think it's common sense on FYM that Saddam was a cruel dictator who violated human rights for a long time."

Dictators would love it if everyone simply generalized them like this rather than putting on the level of warrented scruitny. I'm unconvinced that many people understand how brutal this dictator really was in detail.

"I'm sure some people chered, i'd cheer too if i live in Iraq, because Saddam is gone. But that dosn't mean that they welcome the US and the UK troops. That's a big difference."

My friends in Iraq get smiles and handshakes every day.


"I remember reports that the allied got control over cities 2-3 times to early. I remember that they found WMDs allready. I remember that they reported that Soldiers acted in self defense and reported shootings from that direction (for example against Journalists) until video footage proved them wrong"

This is not proof of anything. Every war has with information that initially seems credible but later proves inaccurate. The Men and Women of the US military would be the first people to tell you this is what happens in war. But as an organization, the Pentagon is more accurate and correct, on various events than any other media organization. It is constant source of laughter to watch Media organizations get simple military matters incorrect and then report them that way. Its not funny though when people take that as the truth and fail to understand what is really going. The Pentagon gives the best and most accurate information on military matters and is untainted by the political and profit making BS that other media organizations suffer from.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:22 PM   #23
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

This is not proof of anything. Every war has with information that initially seems credible but later proves inaccurate.
This, it would seem, is the understatement of the year.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:28 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:15 PM
"" Sorry, but Aljazeera has political motives, the only motive the men and women serving at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the US military is to protect the freedom and prosperity of the planet"
This is the biggest joke I've ever seen on this board. While the men and women serving in the Military fall into this category, The Pentagon and DOD upper teams look out for:"



"1. Themselves and their continued prosperity - ie. defense spending and maintaining military superiority."

Men and Women working at the Pentagon work for to little pay compared to the job they do and the enormous contributions that they make to this country. Defense spending is vital not only to the nations security but also to the men and women putting their lives on the line for their country. Heavier Defense spending means more money for better weapons that help win wars with less cost of life. It means more money for training which means less cost of life. It means more money for pay which means a better standard of living for the men and women who serve our country. More defense spending means a better standard of living for the families of service personal.

Maintaining a strong military increases the likely hood of resolving conflicts quickly with less loss of life and also of preventing future conflicts from beginning in the first place.


"2. American superiority on earth"

The Men and Women serving at the Pentagon care about the values of freedom, democracy, and Capitalism, being available to the world because these things give the average person options and abilities to do things to improve their lives that have not existed in the past.

There are certainly organizations like Al Quada who are opposed to this and the men and women serving in the Pentagon. They crashed a plane into the Pentagon killing over 100 people working there on 9/11. But those at the Pentagon have pulled together and continue to work hard to help make the world a better place despite what other organizations may think about them.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 07:51 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Womenfish,

"I know Iraq wasn't going to turn into Orlando in 6 months, BUT - if you will remember before the war started, Republicans in the administration and on the news channels all were saying how we will be in and out of there in no time, we will be greeted with cheers, and within a year everything will be great and stable and a better life and world for Iraq and the Middle east."

This is democratic campaign talk. Can you please give me exact quotes. The President never set a timetable for troops being in Iraq or give level of funding that would be required. These things would be impossible to accurately know until one was on the ground. It was impossible to know prior to the war since Iraq was a police state controlled by Saddam how bad conditions in certain area's of the country were.

I don't recall congress asking Franklin Roosevelt to know the cost of World War II or the cost of rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan before the USA entered World War II in 1941. Knowing such things as it is now, was impossible.

US troops have been in Bosnia for nearly 8 years now. Everyone knows that a similar occupation time frame is in store for Iraq and no one in the administration said ALL US troops will be home by this date or that date. That idea is simply democratic political campaign talk, or an over generalization suggested by those that opposed the war.

"Well that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Lots of people questioned our exit strategy before going to war. That question was never answered and now we are paying for it. (literally"

Whats bullshit is the idea that the Administration said US troops would all be home in months. The Administration never said that. By the way, what was President Roosevelt's exist strategy for World War II?

The USA has been an important partner in the Persian Gulf Region ever since Truman was President and it is not leaving any time soon.

"My problem with war to begin with was not just giving more time for the inspectors, but to give us more time to actually have a decent plan and to do it right. I think tens of billions of dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted, and lives lost because of this misstep."

The 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the Gulf War was signed in March 1991. The USA, Saddam, the international community had 12 years to prepare for every possible contingency. Saddam for his part had over 12 years to disarm, a process that most countries can achieve in under a year. The USA and international community had 12 years to deal with Saddam's cheat and retreat strategies and to disarm Saddam without military force, or to in fact to prepare for the use of military force and the aftermath.

But what would your plan of been precisely, and what would it of achieved over the past 6 months? Would Saddam still be in power? If not what would the post war occupation look like and why?

Its the easiest thing for people to criticize. Most talk of the war consist of criticism rather than people actually stating how they could have done things better.

Rebuilding Iraq is NOT a waste of money, but is in fact vital to the National Security of this country. One has to ask what risk to US Security and Iraqi lives was continuing to wait have been? What would waiting of accomplished. Conditions in Iraq would in fact be even worse and require more money to fix, if some indefinite wait had been chosen. The international community had already waited for 12 years and failed to insure that Saddam was disarmed? What would 6 months, a year, two years or more accomplished, accept risk regional security and allow Saddam to kill thousands of more Iraqi's and make any reconstruction effort following a war more difficult and costly.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 08:13 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:15 PM
" The only guilt the USA should have is that it did not act sooner to bring down the regime of Saddam "

So you think encouraging people to revolt against a cruel dictator and than fly back home, because you got your oil-deal with another country was ok?
Buf if you mean "sooner" = imediately after the bath party was installed from the US than we agree.

"This is not the 18th century. Being 67, especially a 67 year old head of state is not old. "

There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)

"one of his sons or senior level officials"
..right but there would have bin chances to tell them "ok, now we (UN) don't tolerate the things we tolerated and supported before with your father (the warcrimes, human right violations etc) it's easier to raise preasure if the regime is new and changing.

"War for economical reasons is war for Standard of living."

Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too
Oil is yesturdays energy. If you take a look what hapened today at the north pole your government should realize that it would be the best to change to new technologies emediately.
For example Fuel/Oil out of plants.
With technic mainly developed in Germany in WW II (they didn't have enough Oil and needed alternatives) plus the new technology developed in the last 5 years it would be possible to go new ways.
The "trick" of fuel out of plants is that it blasts as much CO2 in the air as it takes out of the air while growing.
The "high living standards" are worth nothing if our children will suffer in life because of the destroyed nature.

" The Pentagon enforces the Foreign Policy that is decided upon by the State Department and US government."

And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!

" WRONG! Saddam is the only one with blood on his hands."

the US troops killed several women, children and male civilists - every one of them is blood on the hands of the commander.
In literature you would call this tragedy:
No perfect way, all opertunities leave dead people and all these opertunities leave blood on your hand.

"Dictators would love it if everyone simply generalized them like this rather than putting on the level of warrented scruitny. I'm unconvinced that many people understand how brutal this dictator really was in detail."

I'm sure that the average ai-member is pretty well educated by the monthly ai-journals what hapens in these countries. And it's shocking to see how much of this pain is ignored and is done by nations who are our "friends".
For example Pakistan:
Because someone did something religious wrong it is an official punishment from the clerics there to punish his sister she was raped by a group of males in front of the whole vilage. And the leaders of our countries don't even complain officially because - hey they help in our war against terror.
In 5 year old ai yournals i could quote you lots of cruelties from Saddam.
Different from the above, but much worse than i could imagine before i read about them.

" My friends in Iraq get smiles and handshakes every day. "

I'm happy that your friends have a good contact to the Iraqis and don't get shot by angry civilians.
Obviousely we can see in the news that not every Iraqi likes the occupation, some of them were enemies of Mr. Hussein also.
It's no easy black and White, not only US=Good, everyone against the US=friend of Saddam=bad.

If the world would be easy like that and the US military didn't do anything wrong in their whole history the best thing for the world would be a military dictatorship from the US-troops in the whole world.

"The Pentagon gives the best and most accurate information on military matters and is untainted by the political and profit making BS that other media organizations suffer from."

You think the rescue-story was also the most accurate information which was possible?
Don't you think that they reported several times better stories than reality to get public support when they needed it?

I neither think that all people at the Pentagon and the US troops are bad people nor i think all of them are good.
They are HUMANS, some good, some excelent, some with a imperfect personality, some even evil or cruel

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 09:05 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Europe started two World Wars.
Okay, here we go again.

I don't know what kind of Europhobia you have, but now you're just being plain offensive.

So we went from Hitler starting WW2 to Europe? Sorry, go back and read the history books. Europeans like the Polish, the French and yes, the European Jews, are they the Europe that "started" two world wars? Is England? Is Ireland? Is Scandinavia?

I have no words.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 10:28 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Klaus,

"So you think encouraging people to revolt against a cruel dictator and than fly back home, because you got your oil-deal with another country was ok?
Buf if you mean "sooner" = imediately after the bath party was installed from the US than we agree."

Both points are false. US have maintained over 30,000 troops in the region since the end of the first Gulf War. The USA would have continued onto Baghdad in 1991, but the international community was only willing to support the liberation of Kuwait. It is countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, and others who did not support going to Baghdad who are at fault if anyone is for the massacres that occured. But I blame Saddam and Saddam alone.

Saddam and Iraq were a client state of the Soviet Union. If your interested in looking at the Weapons Table I have put up hear I can copy and paste it to this thread.

"There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)"

Really, and where was he going to go, The Moon? There is about as much truth to that story as there is to any story about a possible David Lee Roth/Bono duet.

.".right but there would have bin chances to tell them "ok, now we (UN) don't tolerate the things we tolerated and supported before with your father (the warcrimes, human right violations etc) it's easier to raise preasure if the regime is new and changing."

I strongly suggest you take another look at Saddam's regime. Its one that Saddam had carefully caculated every senerio for. Saddam early on new that he had many enemies and was prepared to deal with plans to deal with things if he was murdered. The Regime would have survived intact because everyone in the regime had a stake in its survival. His sons are far more unbalanced than he is, presenting a greater threat to regional security.

" Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too"

No one is robbing anyone of anything except Saddam.

As far as new technology and energy, when Germany has successfully converted to a new energy source and no longer uses oil please tell me. I'm sure if I rent a car in Germany I'll have to fill her up with oil.

A new energy resource will only be possible and a good alternative when the technology successfully develops an energy resource that is more efficient and cheaper than oil. Once you have that, oil will then be replaced. The USA is not the only country that uses oil. The entire Planet does, and until the Planet changes that fact, oil in the Persian Gulf Region will continue to be vital to the lives of people around the world.

An economic depression(worse than the 1930s) started because of a disruption or cut off of oil supplies from the middle east will make developing any alternative source of energy nearly impossible do to lack of funds.


"And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!"

The Pentagon does not raise money or get more power. It sets up a military strategy to help provide the countries national security needs. It conducts military operations by order of the President.


"the US troops killed several women, children and male civilists - every one of them is blood on the hands of the commander.
In literature you would call this tragedy:
No perfect way, all opertunities leave dead people and all these opertunities leave blood on your hand."

One has blood on their hands when they target and kill innocent civilians. The US military does not target innocent civilians. It does target terrorist. Hitler and Saddam and those that worked for them targeted innocent civilians. It was their policy.

US soldiers do everything in their power to prevent civilian deaths. They risk their own lives to do this. US soldiers perform life saving medical treatment on Iraqi soldiers and terrorist who only moments before were trying to kill them. A terrorist from Syria who was shot was taken to an American military hospital where doctors worked for days to save his life and bring his health back. The Syrian was brought to tears. He could not believe how people he had try to kill could be so nice to them. Of course this is not a story that will get much press in countries like France and Germany.

US soldiers do not have blood on their hands unless a soldier specifically targeted a non-threatening civilian. Police, Firefighters, doctors all make mistakes, but no one says they have blood on their hands as long as they did the best they could to insure the mistake did not happen.

Its sad to see people accuse US soldiers who are performing life saving work in Iraq right now be accused of being blood thirsty murders. Thats totally false and shows a lack of respect for the brave work these men and women are performing.

Its true human rights abuses happen in Pakistan. But its also true that Pakistan has been vital in rolling up Al Quada and could be the key in finally catching Bin Ladin. We could choose not to work with Pakistan on this and isolate them for human rights abuses, but did you ever think what the consequences of that would be? The USA has chosen the right course of action in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and even most European countries support the USA on this.

"I'm happy that your friends have a good contact to the Iraqis and don't get shot by angry civilians.
Obviousely we can see in the news that not every Iraqi likes the occupation, some of them were enemies of Mr. Hussein also.
It's no easy black and White, not only US=Good, everyone against the US=friend of Saddam=bad"

The problem with the media many people watch is that it only shows the bad things that happen and not any of the good things that are happening. This produces a totally inaccurate picture that the situation is hopeless. It is far from hopeless and things get better everyday.

Civilians in Tikrit do not represent the majority of Iraqi's, but some here in FYM and other media outlets seem to think they do.


"You think the rescue-story was also the most accurate information which was possible?
Don't you think that they reported several times better stories than reality to get public support when they needed it?"

It is not the Pentagon's job to campaign for public support for anything. The Pentagon serves the public. The Pentagon serves the US government.

I suspect many Europeans don't realize the incredible and amazing things US troops are doing in Iraq and that is a shame. These men and women are working hard risking their lives to make a better life for Iraqi civilians while countries like France balk and stall in sending money or troops to help out.

"some even evil or cruel"


You've accused some US troops of being evil? Can you prove they have done anything evil though in Iraq?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2003, 10:38 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Antrim,

"Okay, here we go again."

"I don't know what kind of Europhobia you have, but now you're just being plain offensive."

"So we went from Hitler starting WW2 to Europe? Sorry, go back and read the history books. Europeans like the Polish, the French and yes, the European Jews, are they the Europe that "started" two world wars? Is England? Is Ireland? Is Scandinavia?"

"I have no words."

Blame does not only go to Hitler but also to those that had to power to stop him and did not. England and France could have taken action in the 1930s to stop Hitler but did not. Europeans in various countries all over Europe allowed and helped the SS to hunt down and kill Jews.

The USA also deserves some blame to for not helping out and preventing these events. But the responsibility falls more on Europe to have prevented both World Wars from happening in the first place.

Blood is not on their hands, just that their foreign policies and policies of non-intervention were ineffective in preventing what happened. US foreign policy dramatically changed after 1945 because the US correctly understood the cost of inaction. As Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate, most European Governments don't seem to have learned how important it can be to intervene in crises before they spin out of control.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 08:24 AM   #30
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
It is countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, and others who did not support going to Baghdad ...
In Iraq war 1 Germany stood behind the US and didn't question their decision, we payed a fortune to the US, because Mr. Kohl didn't want to participate with troops, just with money (His infamous checkbook diplomacy)

Saddam was installed by the US, we thought he was "our bastard" until we realized that bastards are bastards and don't care about who gave them the power. I know the list you posted about the Weapons he bought, i had some questions, but finaly it wasn't important enough for me to spend more time with checking this.

Quote:
"There was a large article about Saddams preparations for his retirement in 2001 in Die Zeit. And according to the 5-page article it seemed reasonable that he was preparing to leave within the next 5 years (2006)"

Really, and where was he going to go, The Moon? There is about as much truth to that story as there is to any story about a possible David Lee Roth/Bono duet.
Do you want a discussion or do you only want to see what fits your point of view?

Quote:
" Yes, robbery is a "war for Standard of living" too"

No one is robbing anyone of anything except Saddam
The western world stole the goods of the 3rd world for centuries, remember the colonaliasation? Where europe defacto stole The Gold and the Goods they wanted to?
Remember that we stole an entire contient called USA from the native americans?

Definition of "steal" from the American Heritage Dictionary:

steal
to take (the proplerty of another) without right or permission

Quote:
As far as new technology and energy, when Germany has successfully converted to a new energy source and no longer uses oil please tell me. I'm sure if I rent a car in Germany I'll have to fill her up with oil.
You fill it up with gasonline, not oil. And that's the trick, you can manufacture the same gasoline out of trash or plants.

Quote:
A new energy resource will only be possible and a good alternative when the technology successfully develops an energy resource that is more efficient and cheaper than oil.
With the same standards you could have defended slavery.
"We only stop slavery if we find a cheaper way to maintain our cotonfields."

If we'd put the same amount of money in regenerative energy it will become much cheaper.
We have to do it anyway. If we would raise the "3rd" world to the american standards of living traditional oil resources will be gone in our lifespan.

The EU and the US should spend more money in future technologies and energies rather than to give it to farmers. From the money the farmers of the 3rd world earn they can buy our new shiny products


Quote:
An economic depression(worse than the 1930s) started because of a disruption or cut off of oil supplies from the middle east will make developing any alternative source of energy nearly impossible do to lack of funds.
So it's even more important that our future dosn't only rely on oil. Even if we manage that the poor will stay poor and the 3rd world won't have any access to oil it will be gone in the next generations. - So wars for oil are short sighted

Quote:
"And the Pentagon can raise more money and get more power if the US is in critical situations!"

The Pentagon does not raise money or get more power. It sets up a military strategy to help provide the countries national security needs. It conducts military operations by order of the President.
The more money they get from the government the more they are able to present the President good or risky stratetgies. The more the President relies on these strategies the more money they get.

So you tell me that there is no interest for the Pentagon to get money to enlargen his troops and by that to increase their relevance in the world?
Imagine a 100% peaceful world . what would hapen to the job of the Pentagon employees?

Quote:
One has blood on their hands when they target and kill innocent civilians. The US military does not target innocent civilians. It does target terrorist. Hitler and Saddam and those that worked for them targeted innocent civilians. It was their policy.
So you think a driver has only blood on his hands when he is "targeteting" a child on a road and tries to kill it, he has no blood on his hands when he just drives to fast (and thereby risks the death) and tries to avoid collision with the kid on the road?

I defenetly see 2 different qualities here. I don't think that the US military is a bunch of murders - they would be murders if they were targeting innocent civilians. They "just" have blood on their hands.

Quote:
Its sad to see people accuse US soldiers who are performing life saving work in Iraq right now be accused of being blood thirsty murders. Thats totally false and shows a lack of respect for the brave work these men and women are performing.
I didn't call the US soldiers murder, and i won't call all the US soldiers murders in the future. There might be single murders, but that dosn't have to do much with the US military in general.

i explained the difference between blood on your hands and a murder above.

Quote:
Its true human rights abuses happen in Pakistan. But its also true that Pakistan has been vital in rolling up Al Quada and could be the key in finally catching Bin Ladin. We could choose not to work with Pakistan on this and isolate them for human rights abuses, but did you ever think what the consequences of that would be? The USA has chosen the right course of action in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and even most European countries support the USA on this.
I'm glad that we agree that there are human right abuses in Pakistan.
All i'm asking that we don't close our eyes at the human right abuses in Pakistan. Also Pakistan is a ally i think our political leaders should criticize their ally in public. Germany did that with china also we want good economical relaitons. I think if the US president does that with some of his new friends the public can see that the wars against terror are not a war for american interests but a war for western values.

Quote:
The problem with the media many people watch is that it only shows the bad things that happen and not any of the good things that are happening. This produces a totally inaccurate picture that the situation is hopeless. It is far from hopeless and things get better everyday.
you are right, massmedia loves the sensation more than the truth.
And since the public expected a short successful war and then a new democratic iraq in a verry short time (like Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair told us before the war) it's now a sensation that the people who were liberated try to kill the soldiers who liberated them.
We expect that the US troops help wounded enemies and therefore it's no sensation -> no big news


Quote:
I suspect many Europeans don't realize the incredible and amazing things US troops are doing in Iraq and that is a shame. These men and women are working hard risking their lives to make a better life for Iraqi civilians while countries like France balk and stall in sending money or troops to help out.
The mayority of the EU citizens didn't want this war, so you shouldn't be surprised that the politicians (who's job it is to represent the will of their citizens) don't want to send troops and money for the US to help with a war they also didn't want.
Also don't forget that it's highly controversal debated if this war violates international rights and therefore is a kind of war where you will be imprisoned for lifetime if you are german and support it.

Quote:
"some even evil or cruel"

You've accused some US troops of being evil? Can you prove they have done anything evil though in Iraq?
I have accused some people, there are cruel people everywhere, so it's impossible to find any profession (even US soldier) where you don't have any evil or cruel persons.

And i can't proof it, but your military justice did allready. You removed a military m.d. from iraq because he was torturing his muslimic pows he should cure.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com