That's my point exactly. Everything you accused me of (not leaving my own country, being naive, etc)... I admit it. I know there's tons of stuff out there that I don't know about.
Of course, it's not a lack of trying to find the truth. It's a lack of the ability to find the truth. Like you said, the main media outlets are all run by corporations. They all feed certain views. While I wouldn't group FOX and CNN on the same boat (not unless I wanted to watch one push the other into the harbor), that's just personal opinion.
Of course, when the local media screens what they put out there for us to see, you have to understand how a general populous can be so easily "duped". If certain groups of people only want us to hear certain things, they're going to scream the loudest in an attempt to drown everyone else out, regardless of whether or not they're right.
And personally, I hate Survivor and other related reality shows.
But, what I'm curious about is why someone who's supposedly honest would automatically be seen as a 'liberal'. If you really watch all the main news outlets (not counting FOX), they all favor liberalism, but we all know they're only telling half the story anyway.
Then again, today's 'liberal' is a bit different and a bit more tainted, I would think, than the original 'liberal'... the true and honest 'liberal'.
But, like I said... I don't have an elite force of intelligence gatherers to help me out and get the absolute and untainted truth, so I'm just going on what I see and hear from so-called normal news channels.
So, yes, I'm misinformed, naive, and out of the loop. But, it's because I know that and because I know that I don't have anywhere near the political power and ability to change things that other people have that I can sit back and close my eyes while I hope for the best. Sometimes, it's all anyone can do.
"The Anglosphere", such an ethnically charged term Matt. Whom exactly makes up this "Anglosphere," exactly. Just the USA? Are you allowing your British and Australian puppies to come in as part of your sphere?”
Well Daren, at least you don't obfuscate your views of the United States and its government. Referring to the British and Australians as "puppies" of the United States isn't fair to the British, the Australians or the United States. Is it so hard to envision others sharing the same view as the United States government on matters of world stability that you would insult them because of it? While I conceptually understand the "Anglosphere" term that Matt utilized, it could easily become a wildfire debate so I'm not touching it further. If you want to learn about wars gone by you’re far more likely to have an interesting read over Europe’s wars and particularly never-ending occurrences in the Middle-East since before the beginning of recorded history.
“Regardles of our history war is NOT inevitable, even taking into account our tendency and proclivity towards waging it. How you can make such an assinine comment is beyond reason ol' boy.”
I completely disagree though I won’t call you asinine for it. The facts are that you will never live in a world without war. Don’t label others asinine for admitting the truth of the situation.
“As for Core... Lucid? Maybe if you're on LSD. “
First off, I’d like to thank Matt for his compliment, I was fairly certain I’d only run into Daren doppelgangers here. Is the “LSD” comment your blanket negative response to me or was there something specific you’d like to mention? My original post was clear, easily understandable and quite rational. Perhaps you could use a dictionary to further your understanding of this word and also to assist you with future posts. Honestly, if you’re going to verbally berate someone try to spell the words correctly.
Jessi-Lynne – I loved your meandering thoughts.
Mon 14-Jul-2003 21:22 Posted by:Core
hi, just to clarify when i said "if someone is being completely honest about what they know you probably don’t have the time to listen" i didn't mean to infer that only liberals speak honestly. i think people on both fringes are pretty darn wacky actually.
my point was that most of us aren't taking the time to keep up with what's happening in the world. and yes it is a daunting task. most people are too busy with work, kids, social life and entertainment to become responsible voters. so we settle for highly processed information. look for a broader range of information. if you're listening to rush then make sure to spend as much time reading chomsky. if you're watching a lot of fox, well then follow it up with some new york times. if you only listen to stuff you agree with you're only watching half of the tennis match (ouch i tripped over a metaphor)
i'll furnish some links in a follow-up comment.
but there are things you can do to get in touch with the outside world without ever leaving your state. as an english teacher living abroad i have heard COUNTLESS times from students that have studied in america that they were often ignored or worse yet discriminated against. the efforts to repair america's reputation worldwide can begin at home by reaching out to the visitors.
go to your nearest university and ask about volunteering as a conversation partner. learn about another culture and country one person at a time.
don't just read the news, be a part of the news.
wow that was rather pamphlet-esque...
um,
yeah,
john
Tue 15-Jul-2003 04:27 Posted by:djloopwrex
Can anyone answer this question for me - why is it we read more about the plight of the Palestinians than we do the plight of the Chechyns? I just read an awful report at TheRadical blogspot about Russian soldiers raping 13 yr old Chechyn girls in "filtration camps". Core? Daren? DJLoop? Anyone?
well i think it's important to keep in mind that while ussia didn't support the u.s. invasion of iraq, it didn't really go out of its way to do anything to discourage it. if george bush were making regular statements about the situation in chechnya, perhaps it would be more of an issue. russia and the u.s. seem to have made an agreement to politely let each other settle their respective affairs without interference. (as clinton seemed to also have done before)
also the geopolitical impact of israel's presence and actions reverberate strongly throughout the middle east.
the tension of israel's occupation of palestine is a real destabilizing force in the entire middle east whereas russia has pretty brutally crushed the rebellion of a separatist state. perhaps the magnitude of the two situations is deemed to be different?
another question to ask is - how easy it for western journalists to get into chechnya? also i imagine that there are a lot of nice hotels for journalists to stay at in tel aviv. can you get a decent martini in chechnya?
also important to remember is that the u.s. is supplying a lot of the military aid to israel which has been used to put down the intifadah. as voters we should be most aware of situations that are abetted by our own government.
also israel is a country that has vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, oh wait russia does too... never mind...
Wed 16-Jul-2003 04:48 Posted by:some good places for news
Core, excellent piece you posted. Couldn't have said it any better.
Unfortunately, it may not do much to convince those with extreme views. I know quite a few people, including a housemate of mine, with extremely cynical views and they tend to be at least mildly mentally ill. To be fair, those with extreme right wing views also tend to be missing at least an oar.
Rigidity of viewpoint and extreme unshakeable conviction that one "knows what's really going on" are characteristics of paranoid schizophrenia, for example. I don't mean people like djpoo-whatever are suffering a full-blown form of the aforementioned affliction- rather, they may have merely a mild form or experiencing another kind of emotional malaise, i.e. excessive rage or anxiety.
Mental illnesses aren't the only causes of extremism, of course. A lot of young people are drawn to extreme views because they find it exciting to view the world in black & white and us-against-them terms (i.e. corporations, jews, black people, (or whatever ur favorite enemy is) are destroying the world). rationalism is boring, let's face it.
another possible cause is naviete. there's naive cynicism and there's, well, naive naivete it also strikes young people most often. they've heard only one side so it didn't occur to them there's a whole another side that could make as much sense.
yet another cause: direct bad experience leading to overgeneralization, i.e. a white person gets robbed by a black person and so is convinced all black people are criminal fiends.
if u want to know the real truth, understand that it almost always is somewhere between the extremes.
(BTW, excellent list of news sources next to this post. indeed, the best way to get the closest thing to the truth is to read various sources of various viewpoints. there's NO one publication or political leaning that has a monopoly on the truth. also, u may want to add washingtonpost.com, who has/had an excellent coverage of the Iraq situation with lots of articles on the Iraqis' viewpoint.)
Wed 16-Jul-2003 18:46 Posted by:Xor
thank you, Xor, for the compassionate concern about the state of my mental well-being and i am glad that you liked the list of links i posted.
i think maybe what’s really wrong with me is that i threw out my TV in 1995 (to be honest it broke and i didn’t have enough money to buy a new one) and started living my own life rather than watching other people live theirs in Technicolor.
but enough about me, i would love to hear about more of this ‘rationalism’.
cheers,
john
Thu 17-Jul-2003 09:18 Posted by:djloopwrex
Djloopwrex, I really shouldn't have pointed you out- there are much worse cases here Nice that you did the list. Nevertheless I found some of ur opinions unreasonable or unprovable. It's pretty obvious that IF you actually read the sources you listed at all, you haven't give them much consideration except for those that side with your cynical views.
Iraq situation- it's clear that USA doesn't have sinister motives (if it isn't what you are trying to imply, I apologize. It can be hard to keep track of who says what here). It has pretty much given UN and Iraq control of Iraqis oil, and an act is being passed in which every Iraqis will share in national oil profits- they will receive regular checks. That's more than Saddam did, wasn't it?
Another interesting piece of news: I read London Times yesterday (check if the piece's still online at www.timesonline.co.uk) that 50% of Iraqis polled believe the coalition was right to invade Iraq, while only 27% don't. The rest didn't give an opinion. The fact that despite the fact Baathist loyalists and terrorists have been killing Iraqis who have given any form of support to the coalition, 50% still voted in affirmative says a lot. Remove the fear factor, the number would be much higher.
A lot of people in the world don't like what US & Britain are doing. So what? It's possible to be hated for doing something good. Just ask Martin Luther King, Copernicus, et al. If you're controlled by what other people think, I feel sorry for you.
Thu 17-Jul-2003 19:16 Posted by:Xor
Just checked London Times, can't find it. It was in the "breaking news" (world) section. Don't know where its articles are archived.
here are some interesting quotes from that article you posted
“Asked what kind of government the Iraqis want, 36% favoured western-style democracy with competing parties but 50% opted for one of the five variants of Islamic, presidential or single-party rule.”
~what are the odds that a true democracy is going to emerge when 50 percent of the population wants to live in a country much like Iran?
“However, the Channel 4 News and the Spectator survey shows that, despite these deep concerns, only a minority oppose the coalition invasion, and as few as one in eight wants the invaders to leave the country straight away. Among the findings of the YouGov poll of almost 800 people throughout Baghdad last week was that Iraqis want the occupying troops to restore normality quickly and then hand the country back to the Iraqis.”
~note that this poll was taken in Baghdad. what are the people outside of Baghdad saying? i’d also like to know how opinions vary by region and religion. are you going to let a poll of 800 people in Baghdad alone shape your whole conception of what’s going on in Iraq today???
(notice how i’m asking questions, hopefully allowing the reader to form their own opinion rather than telling them what to think.)
Fri 18-Jul-2003 04:59 Posted by:djloopwrex
please don't read this because it may have been written by a psycho-depressed, self-hating, cynical liberal who doesn't watch enough TV.
Bernard Weiner on the PNAC:
One can believe that maybe PNAC sincerely believes its rhetoric -- that instituting U.S.-style free-markets and democratically-elected governments in Iraq and the other authoritarian-run countries of the Islamic Middle East will be good both for the citizens of that region and for American interests as well -- but even if that is true, it's clear that these incompetents are not operating in the world of Middle Eastern realities.
I'm gonna hit the sack now, will talk more tomorrow. For now, I'll just say since the truth's usually somewhere between the extremes, Bush probably has some selfish motives and some sincere motives for the actions affecting Iraq. Ultimately, we'll never know what's on his mind. We could speculate forever. But my stance is that his motives don't matter. Rather, it's his actual actions and their outcomes that matter.
I have only vague knowledge about The Project for the American Century (only a century? ).. I'll be sure to learn more about it tomorrow.
Good night!
Fri 18-Jul-2003 06:55 Posted by:Xor
Further to Xor's post, yesterday. BBC radio listeners will have heard about The Project for the New American Century - a rightwing fascist US organisation - and that Donald Rumsfeld is allegedly associated with it. Read their website and make up your own mind.
www.newamericancentury.org
My view, at the moment, is that if Europe goes to war with America, these 21st century fascists (and the pathetic American education system) will have had a lot to do with it.
Fri 18-Jul-2003 08:23 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
The poll taken in Baghdad - commissioned, I think,
by the British tv station, Channel 4 - is on the YouGov web site
(The URL should not line-wrap. If it doesn't work,
go to www.yougov.com and follow links to recent
reports and then Iraq/Baghdad.)
Rachel, a Brit in London
Fri 18-Jul-2003 08:31 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
Rachel, America might've been guilty of being aggressive, but one thing it will never (or at least very extremely unlikely) do is attack a peaceful, democratic nation. So that makes it distinct from "other" fascist nations.
I checked the website linked by you. Well, I judge every action by the American government by this question: is it a win-win thing? What I mean is, does that action also benefit the people it affects? In the case of Iraq, the answer is yes, therefore I support the action.
When the American government does something for its interests but harms people of another country, that's where I draw the line.
Of course, the benefit/harm question is not simple: we have to consider how many people affected, the degree of benefit/harm, the long term implications.
Iraq, for example: Saddam is responsible for somewhere between 300,000 and millions of deaths. How many more Iraqis would he and his sons kill had he stayed in power? Compare that number to the total of Iraqis killed by the war, 7,000 as claimed by the Arab media. Pales in comparison, doesn't it? Not to mention the improvement in the quality of life, IF the Baathist loyalists don't win their guerilla war. Interesting how the anti-war folks have trouble answering the above questions.
BTW, no need to resort to insulting people of another country based on stereotypes. The Americans were just smart enough to vote for Gore. Bush didn't win the election, remember that. And every passing day, it seems more likely that Bush will suffer the same fate as his daddy. Can't say I'm displeased. Because I support the oust of Saddam, it doesn't mean I like Bush.
Djloopwrex, I gotta go. Will address you later
Fri 18-Jul-2003 17:59 Posted by:Xor
Note to Xor - if you study your consititution, you'll note that Bush DID indeed win the election. Note to Americans reading these posts: Mark Rachel's words. She actually implies that the US admin is fascist. She also suggests the possibility of Europe and the US being at war - with EACH OTHER (something, I might add, that would NEVER cross the minds of any American I know). This is the depth of mis-understanding on the other side of the pond. I travel often around the world. In the last 5 years, I've seen an incredible rise in irrational anti-Americanism that is stunning as it is frightening. Whether it was the irishman in a bar in San Fran who LIT into America (and me) saying, "you'll get yours! The EU will OWN you!" or the German ambassador who told my indian girlfriend that "we need more indians in the EU as tech-workers to COUNTER AMERICAN POWER" or, just recently, in St. Maartin, the northern europeans (they spoke, i think, swedish) who were with their cute little kids and wives sitting at a table next to us. When we got up to leave, the men stood up and gave us all the Hitler salute! I could go on and on and on and on people. Or just read anything from www.thedissidentfrogman.com or "theradical" to see how effed up the French are....Rational Europeans are losing the battle for sanity over there. Beware.
Mon 21-Jul-2003 14:34 Posted by:Matt
Note to Matt. Remember, you read it here first.
Mon 21-Jul-2003 19:01 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
Matt, okay, Bush "legally" won the election due to a prehistoric system More Americans voted for Gore, period.
I haven't been overseas since summer 2001, but from what I heard, what you said seems about right. One of my best friends is an Italian studying here in America. He says Europeans see Bush as Hitler incarnernated. His ignorance regarding US policies were astonishing- for example, he actually believed that the other countries give money to US, when it's really the way around (he had no idea about US' massive international financial aid program). Also, a former college roommate of mine is currently studying in Sweden, and he said the Swedes actually make fun of the 9/11 incident and felt the hostility towards Americans so overwhelming that he wouldn't admit to being an American- he would claim to be an Australian (he picked up conversational Swedish quickly enough that he doesn't have to speak Australian English). I don't agree with that decision but hey I'm not in his shoes. Really most unfortunate. Maybe all that has something to do with the sensationalistic nature of the European media? I read about a study showing the American media, as a whole, is much more objective (reporting both sides of the story, avoiding loaded words, etc.) than European. I'll link it if I can find it.
Mon 21-Jul-2003 20:12 Posted by:Xor
i can't find anything about that study- just as well.. it was published months ago. i don't have time to look hard for it.
the closest thing is this, i guess. i know it doesnt actually prove anything.
Xor, I lived in Asia for a few years and one of my very dear and highly educated indian friends claimed to know MORE about the US than I and HE'D NEVER BEEN THERE! His sources were dubious (eg: Chomsky, Sontag) and he was a raving liberal. What scared me was that someone so intelligent and successful could make such an outrageous claim! This is the same claim Europeans who consider themselves "more civilized" simply because their real-estate is older (which would put pigmies and cannibals in the same league) than ours. Again, i bring up Rachel's comment about a war with Europe. Could you EVER imagine an American claiming this as a possibility? I live in the deep south at the moment, know many a red-neck who would think I was insane to suggest such a thing. What will happen when today's european becomes tomorrow's european leader? Watch for the next "REAL" hitler....
Tue 22-Jul-2003 13:35 Posted by:Matt
I know I am jumping in a little late but, earlier Xor commented that Bush won the election due to a prehistoric system. Well, if by prehistoric system you mean he won the election through a representative democracy (a republic) which the U.S. happens to be, we are not a democracy, then you are absolutely correct. In fact, that document that determines how a president is elected is also the document that guarantees the right to religous freedom, the right to free speech, the right to assembly, etc. The idea that the popular vote should determine governmental policy shows how governmentally illiterate you truly are. If popular vote decided policy segregration would not have ended, slavery would not have ended, blacks would not have been given the right to vote, and woman would have also been denied the right to vote. The reason we are a republic and NOT a democracy is because our fore fathers knew the problems associated with mob rule. Simply because a majority of people want something does not mean it should be so, then again maybe you don't believe in those rights enumerated by the constitution. Thankfully the founders of our great nation considered ignorant people such as you when the created the constitution and have taken steps to prevent the rule of ignorant mobs.
Wed 23-Jul-2003 00:20 Posted by:Brian
in defence of Xor i'd like to point out that he never suggested that a popular vote should determine governmental policy.
he was talking about the fact that the executive representative of the people of the U.S. that is currently in office would not have won the election if it had been a popular election.
and i would have to argue that i agree with him that the system is archaic and i'd add, unfair. coming from nebraska where the state almost always votes for republican presidents and i have no inclination to vote republican i might as well throw my ballot in the trash can.
i'm still wondering how a popular vote for an executive representative could be perceived as mob rule...? what i think he means is that people who don't agree with him are just members of a faceless mob of ignorant malcontents. hand me a torch (british english word for flashlight, of course) and let's go to Brian's house!
Wed 23-Jul-2003 14:42 Posted by:djloopwrex
oh and one more thing Xor,
"Also, we "never get out of the freakin country"? I've gone to Europe (and loved it) few times. So did 90% of the people I know. Wow, I guess I know a lot of special people. The reality is, with the air fares tumbling down, oversea flights have become quite common among the younger Americans. Enough with stereotypes."
trips and vacations to Europe and resorts in South America are meant to be nice, safe experiences. sometimes people accidently learn something on these trips. usually things like "oh! i should wear sunblock even on cloudy days", and "hey! they actually use these coins and they're worth more than a dollar!"
backpack trips and vacations zipping around looking at neat older-than-the-U.S.-constitution architecture isn't exactly what i meant when i spoke about lack of experience abroad.
~living in one place in a foreign country for an extended period of time.
~learning a foreign country's language and customs
~devoloping lasting, long-term relationships with people in said country.
those things are more what i had in mind.
yeah. i love the friends i met in europe. talking with them i learned a lot. i learned what freedom was and wasn't. i learned that properly educating your populace means not having to fear mob-rule. i learned that america is a nice place to live but many places in europe are just as nice but in different ways.
no, sampling the beers of europe on a monthlong backpacking tour wasn't quite what i had in mind.
i've lived in asia since 1998. i know shockingly little about africa or south america, but there's more time to learn...
cheers,
john
Wed 23-Jul-2003 17:03 Posted by:djloopwrex
I can't talk long now- I'm crashing at a friend's place in Montreal and it'd be kind of rude if I used his computer for too long
I'll just say Djloopwrex made some interesting comments. I'm not going to defend every mistake my country made- i.e. protecting the tyranny in Saudia Arabis- I've always resented how it clashes with US's supposed ideals. But I'll say the ONLY reason why US hasnt invaded North Korea already is because of Seoul's safety. It's the very reason why it's handling N.K. with kid gloves, relatively speaking.
Wed 23-Jul-2003 17:18 Posted by:Xor
djloopwrex,
Aren't North and South Korea still technically at war but under a cease fire that even recently was broken with automatic gunfire within the DMZ? Isn't the U.S. presence in South Korea the main reason that cease fire ever happened in the first place? Wouldn't South Korea be under communist rule if not for the U.S. presence as a deterrent? Do you think it's possible the U.S. threatened to leave South Korea if it did not support the effort in Iraq? Is there something wrong with action or inaction having consequences? I'm fairly ignorant about the Korean situation so I'm genuinely curious.
I know you guys government subsidize game developers so maybe we should just Zerg rush the North? (joking)
Regards,
Core
Wed 23-Jul-2003 17:35 Posted by:Core
As for Korea, I set up an office in Seoul for my firm and loved the time I spent there. I felt no animosity toward Americans and this was 1998. What I did feel was Europeans constantly trying to convince our Asian friends that America was a bully, that they were our slaves etc. It was the most startling thing of my entire trip. But in all my travels for work abroad, I always found a brave local soul who'd say to me, "Americans are the best people to work for because they're fair". This statement always gave me the courage to carry on in the face of pathetic envy and spite put forth by our "friends".
It is lonely at the top but America carries on. And I've never met a european who wasn't welcomed here with open arms and then commented how different it is in their home country....Too bad the BBC or the New York Times doesn't feel the need to publish it.
Thu 24-Jul-2003 01:59 Posted by:Matt
here's a link to a transcript of Washington Post's internet chat between people and a man who just went through a 5-day "investigation" of the rebuilding efforts in Iraq.
oh - one more thing. while the korean people don't want to get involved with what's going on in iraq, korean corporations do. so the south korean government can blame their involvement on american compulsion while at the same time satisfying corporate power. so who benefits? the common man, no. korean construction firms, yes.
meanwhile the reputation of the USA takes another hit.
Sun 27-Jul-2003 07:19 Posted by:djloopwrex
GEORGE BUSH, TONY BLAIR & ARIEL SHARON ARE ALL WAR CRIMINALS... THOSE ASSHOLES ARE PART OF A WHITE SUPREMACIST AGENDA TO CONTROL RESOURCES LIKE OIL & CULTURE LIKE ISLAM.... BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THE SHIT AINT GONNA HAPPEN... IRAQIS WERE HERE BEFORE WHITE PEOPLE WHERE EVEN WALKIN ON PLANET EARTH... BUSH INVADED FOR THE OIL & AT THE SAME TIME DID SHARON & THE WORLDWIDE EURO ZIONIST MOVEMENT A PAYBACK FAVOR... BUT JUST WAIT!!! THE SHIT IS GONNA GET THICK & RICH IN IRAQ.... YOU THINK THOSE WARRIORS ARE GONNA LET SOME EURO CRACKERS COME IN & TAKE THEY'RE OIL & SHIT WITHOUT A FIGHT.... YEAH I KNOW AMERIKKKA HAS THE GUNS & BULLETS... BUT WAIT TILL THE SNEAK ATTACKS START TO MOUNT!! YEAH!! THEN AMERIKKKANS WILL BE TALKIN THAT LET'S GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE SHIT!!! BUT BUSH & CHENEY THE WAR CRIMINALS WILL HAVE STARTED THE PROCESS OF LETTING EXXON MOBIL & OTHER EURO/AMERICO CORPORATIONS GET IN IRAQ & START PUMPING UP THEM GODDAMN OIL WELLS...... I SAY PUT BUSH, BLAIR & SHARON & ALL THOSE UP UNDER THEY'RE ADMINISTRATIONS, ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES..... FUCK EM!!!!! PEACE......
GEORGE BUSH, TONY BLAIR & ARIEL SHARON ARE ALL WAR CRIMINALS... THOSE ASSHOLES ARE PART OF A WHITE SUPREMACIST AGENDA TO CONTROL RESOURCES LIKE OIL & CULTURE LIKE ISLAM.... BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THE SHIT AINT GONNA HAPPEN... IRAQIS WERE HERE BEFORE WHITE PEOPLE WHERE EVEN WALKIN ON PLANET EARTH... BUSH INVADED FOR THE OIL & AT THE SAME TIME DID SHARON & THE WORLDWIDE EURO ZIONIST MOVEMENT A PAYBACK FAVOR... BUT JUST WAIT!!! THE SHIT IS GONNA GET THICK & RICH IN IRAQ.... YOU THINK THOSE WARRIORS ARE GONNA LET SOME EURO CRACKERS COME IN & TAKE THEY'RE OIL & SHIT WITHOUT A FIGHT.... YEAH I KNOW AMERIKKKA HAS THE GUNS & BULLETS... BUT WAIT TILL THE SNEAK ATTACKS START TO MOUNT!! YEAH!! THEN AMERIKKKANS WILL BE TALKIN THAT LET'S GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE SHIT!!! BUT BUSH & CHENEY THE WAR CRIMINALS WILL HAVE STARTED THE PROCESS OF LETTING EXXON MOBIL & OTHER EURO/AMERICO CORPORATIONS GET IN IRAQ & START PUMPING UP THEM GODDAMN OIL WELLS...... I SAY PUT BUSH, BLAIR & SHARON & ALL THOSE UP UNDER THEY'RE ADMINISTRATIONS, ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES..... FUCK EM!!!!! PEACE......
hmm, somone needs to take a chill pill.. breathe angryblackman, breathe.. repeat with me, it'll be alright, it'll be alright. it's good that you feel impowered. channel that rage and be prodcutive, which I'm sure you're not..
i am not convinced that ANGRYBLACKMAN is actually an african american. the tone of the post and the utter disregard for the african american soldiers who are yet to die in Iraq suggest that this post was meant to disrupt what, until now, has been a rather reasonable discussion.
Hey! Salam Pax!
I know this is G's page, but maybe you are keeping your eyes open. I enjoy your reading your inside view of life in Iraq, but... I read your account about how the Americans "wasted a chance to show Iraqis" the "friggin' corpses" of the bad seeds, and THEN I read Arabic newspapers that say Americans are evil to have allowed photographs of the bodies because it goes against their religious beliefs?!?? Care to comment?
But your next post is mildly more favorable and talks about Tikrit and says "We might get lucky and catch Sadaam."
Whooooah there Salam. Before you start saying "We," don't you think it might be nice to thank all the nice young American soldiers that are spilling their blood to free your country? Have you been doing any fighting against Ba'athists holdouts recently? If so, are guess you can be counted with the soldiers as "We."
Criticism is fine if you have solutions, but an honest effort to aid reform and stabilization would be better (I'd like to hear if you have had any involvement in that- really), and a nice Thank You is always appreciated.
-Ned
Thu 31-Jul-2003 05:50 Posted by:grateful_ned
wtf you talking about grateful_ned?
dont you think you should be thanking G (his/her name is not Salam...how'd you like it if I called you Bubba?) for the privelege of viewing the pictures and taking them?
ITs still his country ! If a person says 'we' its usually just an indication of whose side they happen to be on, not that they are taking part in the actual post-war scrimmages. EFF your attitude!
Thu 31-Jul-2003 18:12 Posted by:just_A_canuck
Oof, so-called grateful_ned, I am embarrassed to be sharing a planet with you. You so obviously know *nothing* of what the Iraqi man/woman-in-the-street has endured this past 20 plus years under Saddam. On the other hand, US soldiers are not conscripts, and no one invited the US to invade Iraq.
Thu 31-Jul-2003 21:46 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
Thanks for your reply Rachel. I'm sorry that you feel embarrassed, but it is precisely because of the last 20 years under Sadaam that I'm happy that there has been a change there. Daily it seems that they are uncovering more and more mass graves. I couldn't begin to imagine what it must have been like to live under Sadaam. So I am not quite sure if you feel that the "invasion" helped Iraq or not. In any case, I hope that life changes for the better there, and I hope that you join me in wishing that as well. In spite of your comment, I think your heart is there too.
Canuck - I'm confused with your reply. If you read my post you would know that it was directed at Salam Pax, a friend of Gee (http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/) and not Gee. Sorry if you did not recognize the name, but I thought he was a little famous now. If you haven't heard of him, check out his page. You will find that he has an interesting perspective on recent history in Iraq (and without use of your abbreviated expletives- you really don't have to resort to that unless you can't think of anything intelligent to say). And BTW, I'm sure Salam also knows how to spell "privilege" too (even though it is a second language to him, but then he is not, as you call yourself, just_A_canuck -- sorry real Canadians
And Gee, your photos are great, and I wish you would post more.
-Ned
Fri 1-Aug-2003 05:11 Posted by:grateful_ned
Rachel - why is it that you (liberals) always say, "you don't know what it was like for the iraqi people the last 20 years!" as if you know? Second - your use of the word, "fascist" reminds me of McCarthy's overuse of the word, "communist" in the 50's. The US is still more democratic than Great Britain - as much as I love your country -so before calling us Fascists, perhaps you ought to take the log out of your own eye so to speak....
Tue 5-Aug-2003 13:42 Posted by:Matt
Ned - as much as I'd like to be thanked by ALL the Iraqi's, we really haven't done much to improve their lives except get rid of a dictator who in spite of his being the devil, still provided water, electricity etc. Once the allied forces can begin to actually IMPROVE the lives of the average citizen, then I believe we'll be thanked (again).
Tue 5-Aug-2003 13:45 Posted by:Matt
Hey Just a Canuck. Your basically criticizing Ned for being "rude" about his countrymen. Well, we've been dealing with Peter Jennings "communist" (wink to Rachel) clap-trap for years. I find it very rude and so I DON"T CHOOSE TO WATCH HIM (lightbulb on yet JAC?)
Tue 5-Aug-2003 13:48 Posted by:Matt
His = G's
Tue 5-Aug-2003 13:48 Posted by:Matt
Matt: I cannot think on what basis you base your assertion that the US is "more democratic than Great Britain". When the US holds general elections, generally the candidates are the ones who can afford astronomical campaign budgets. In this country, as I understand it, candidates' electoral campaign budgets have to be relatively modest, and they are not allowed to overspend. So in the US you end up with representatives who are fabulously wealthy (directors of oil companies, etc); and in the UK you end up with representatives drawn from all walks of life. The latter sounds more democratic, doesn't it?
Tue 5-Aug-2003 18:40 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
Oh another thing I'm wondering about is why wasn't France also labeled as a bully when it threatened to block some Eastern European nations from joining UN (or was it something else?) if they were to show their support for the war. That's plain blackmail.
xor,
saddam hussein was our guy. he was doing what he was sposed to do, which was stamp out communists and keep iran's revolution in check.
when he was gassing the kurds with the blessing of the united states government i don't seem to recall a massive outcry to remove saddam from power.
the point here is not that saddam should have been spared this fate. liberals hate saddam as much as conservatives.
the point is that this war was about business. it was about economics. it was about power. the truth of the matter is that it is not in the u.s. government's interest to let the people of the region develop democratic institutions.
you see, the real fear for those in power is that iraq would become a democracy and then turn around and kick out the foreign oil companies and nationalize its oil industry.
so we can expect the next government of iraq to be just as brutal as saddam's in suppressing the desires of the iraqi people to reap the full profit of their country's natural resources.
oh what a proud american i would be if the u.s. military were there to liberate the people of iraq.
Wed 6-Aug-2003 16:14 Posted by:djloopwrex
djloopwrex,
Oh my. A conspiracy theory. Who would have thunk it? Who pulled these figures out of their bottoms? Saddam himself couldn't have given Ritter this estimate... or could he? I hope his book sells well, I hear he needs rent money.
Regards,
Core
Wed 6-Aug-2003 21:16 Posted by:unnamed
Oh man, cut off
I was saying that Bush being compared to Hitler is what I'd call vilification. Bush's actions killed about 7500 people at most (many of them soldiers) for a good cause. Hitler's killed about 10 million (including those who fought in WWII). Yeah, a reasonable comparison. However, I do agree with your other points in that paragraph.
Wed 6-Aug-2003 21:53 Posted by:Xor
Xor: "Yeah, US merely puppeteered Germany and Japan into powerhouses. South Korea isn't faring too badly.." <boggle> Is that what is taught in American schools? No wonder we are all in this mess.
"Although, you have to realize Britain's myriad of parties still brought in Blair," That is factually not accurate. Blair's "New" Labour took power from the Tories in a landslide election victory. The myriad small parties did not have much effect either way. The point I was making is that, in the UK, Mr Everyman (or woman) can realistically aspire to set up his own party and to represent his countrymen in the national parliament, no matter how much/little he earns. In the US, only Mr Wealthyman can. I know which appears to me to be more democratic.
"US has one of the world's biggest Muslim population " It is the *proportion* (of the entire population) that matters, obviously. Look at my message again, I said: "the population of France includes a large proportion of Muslims".
"Do you have any websites (preferably neutral) you can recommend? Or I can search for them when I have time". I suggest that you look for and read the primary sources, the very Resolutions themselves. There are about 50, since the late 1960s, I understand; and they are probably on the web by now: if not, you could ask Amnesty International where they can be found.
Thu 7-Aug-2003 19:25 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
In reading through all of these posts I've found plenty of different opinions, so I thought I'd offer mine. As an American I might be biased, but I don't think we are in Iraq to establish a colony. We Americans are smarter than most give us credit for and know from history that empires that try to colonize the world always fail. There is no amount of oil that would be worth the life of our soldiers. The only cause worth fighting for is the removal of a dictatorship with a horrendous history of human rights violations. Some say why go into Iraq and not another country? Though the U.S. is strong it can't fight every battle, and Saddam Hussein had the added title of being a possible threat to our country. When you put human rights violations and a threat to America together, you get a very good case for war. Like I said, I might be biased, but I think what we are doing as a country is a good thing. Hopefully histroy will also look kindly on what has been done in Iraq by the Bush administration.
Thu 7-Aug-2003 22:09 Posted by:PK
Rachel, have you heard of the Marshall Plan?? Now I'm beginning to wonder what they're taught *over there*
-b
Fri 8-Aug-2003 00:27 Posted by:Xor
Xor: yes, I had heard of - and had not forgotten - the Marshal Plan.
Fri 8-Aug-2003 11:53 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
So that's partially what I was talking about. I used the term 'puppeteerism' in sarcasm to mock those who love to use it ANYTIME the US tries to lift a struggling nation. As history would show, a nation NEVER had been worse off with the US's guidance and/or aid, unless it interferes with the process, usually out of sheer xenophobia. It had Japan build a democratic constitution, among other things, and what happened? Japan became the most prosperous nation in the entire Pacific Asia. And Germany has the strongest economy in Europe after being rebuilded by US (and Britain too) after WWII. I know less about the US's involvement with South Korea's government- if there's (was) any at all, but at very least it helped to block communism. The outcome is that S. Korea is much more prosperous than its Northern sister and its citizens enjoy more individual rights and freedom.
My whole point is that when the US helps rebuild a nation, it does usually have the nation's best interests and future prosperity in mind. Sorry if that clashes with your cynical views.
Fri 8-Aug-2003 17:28 Posted by:Xor
You know i was all for the War of Liberation.But now i think it's time to go.The ungrateful,ignorant,backward thinking IRAQIS dont deserve our help.Maybe SADDAM put ignorant pills in the water system.Couple that with their ridiculous religon and conspiracy delusions.Like all the other ISLAMIC assholes of the World,they prefer to live in the 8th century.From reading Raed and G's blogs it's apparent they dont have the foggiest notion about what a free society offers.But the sad fact is we can't leave now.We cant afford to have two despicable Islamic States together,side by side.Personally i think we should kill all the infidels(humans that dont convert to Christianity)I guess 40 years of brainwashing have permanently impaired the diaper headed heathens.Its really sad.
Fri 8-Aug-2003 21:23 Posted by:a former liberal
"Former Liberal", I personally find Salam and G's views pretty moderate. Your post doesn't deserve further comment or attention.
Sat 9-Aug-2003 07:07 Posted by:Xor
Former Liberal. It is enlightened views such as yours which cause situations such as Sept 11th. You are nothing better than a racist. You cannot impose your ways on another people, and your soldiers should leave Iraq, having used lies to launch an attack in the first place.
Sat 9-Aug-2003 08:45 Posted by:Paul
To "a former [though I can't believe that you ever were] liberal": Islam is one of the three great global, monotheistic, religions - religions "of the book". The other two are Christianity and Judaism. Yes, Islam is up there with Christianity. I bet that you have never read even one word of the Koran.
And what is it with Americans like you who think that Iraq should be "grateful" to the US? The US/UK did not invade Iraq for reasons of altruism, or to do the Iraqis a favour.
Sat 9-Aug-2003 12:52 Posted by:Rachel, a Brit in London
G, I read (in Salam Pax's blog) that you had been beaten by US military personnel. I was shocked and sorry, and hope that you recover physically and emotionally. I've appreciated your pictures and comments and hope that you will choose to continue sharing your experiences with us.
Wed 13-Aug-2003 17:03 Posted by:Joan
G--I am disgusted, outraged, horrified by your treatment at the hands of U.S. soldiers. I can't think of anything meaningful to say. Just that I am so sorry and appalled.
I love your photos. I guess it is no consolation that you join the ranks of many other journalists being abused while trying to show us what is happening. Thank you for your work.
G, these are powerful images that Americans don't get to see in their illustrious instruments of the press. I'm afraid our government is deeply committed to an un-reality that makes it okay for us to see images of violence on television and in movies all the time, but can't deal with the possibilities of real American aggression, or even the possibility that large numbers of people can be killed and dumped in mass graves, no matter who does the killing.
Our soldiers were not prepared for the job they are now faced with. I think maybe they only know how to respond to difficult situations in warlike, rather than a peacelike way. I'm sorry they took it out on you.
Mon 18-Aug-2003 02:46 Posted by:RLK ulhc
Hang tough G. Sorry to hear about the beating. Crazy times. Our boys/girls are in way over their heads but we can't walk away from the evil now. Hopefully we can hand off the country back to you soon and get outta there. You have lots of friends here in the US rooting for you and your country to emerge from the darkness. Any news on Saddam? Hopefully we find him and Osama playing cards together one day soon!
Wed 20-Aug-2003 17:24 Posted by:Caz
2 thoughts. First, Islaam, as practiced by Muslims today, is designed to retard or eliminate any scientific or social advancement. If it doesn't pass what they say "Allah" wants, it can't be good. Second, to Rachel. I'm sorry, but you sound like so many ill informed liberals I have met in my life. I don't think you have lived in Iraq for the last 20 years so how do you know what they feel?
It's easier to be a bleeding heart than a thinking head.
Will you put pictures of you, salam pax and riverbend here?
Fri 29-Aug-2003 03:41 Posted by:Hans
Liberty with out jubilation, Liberty indeed?!.
what CNN think us, stupid?
Those ignorant even fail propanganda war, Arab media won this time.
Tue 2-Sep-2003 10:32 Posted by:Jerry
This is all just hopeless. Why do we even bother? The human race is like a disease that feeds on itself. Everyone hates everyone and we just continue the cycle of killing each other. And how about religion's role? Religion has killed more people than anything else all in the name of God. Must be really satan. God would probably tell us all to chill. F everyone. I'm taking care of me and mine from here on out and you can all choke on it.
Fri 12-Sep-2003 22:26 Posted by:Caz - NYC
Caz:
"And how about religion's role? Religion has killed more people than anything else all in the name of God. Must be really satan. God would probably tell us all to chill. "
If you wanna get technical about it, in the last century utopian atheist philosophies have killed more than all religious wars of mankind before them added together, even if you adjust for population growth.
Chinas "great leap forward," Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's killing fields, Adolph Hitler... Religious wars pale in comparison.
it also strikes young people most often. they've heard only one side so it didn't occur to them there's a whole another side that could make as much sense.
Why do we even bother? The human race is like a disease that feeds on itself. Everyone hates everyone and we just continue the cycle of killing each other. And how about religion's role? Religion has killed more people than anything else all in the name of God. Must be really satan. God would probably tell us all to chill. F everyone. I'm taking care of me and mine from here on out and you can all choke on it. 
.to/book.php?book=1phentermine