|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco:
check private message. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Geoschmo. It would appear that the word "censorship" has a somewhat negative press. A lot of people interpret it as being bad. I was using it in its broadest sense...where anyone limits or restricts an act or verbal expression of another, however small. The picture may be appropriate at a gun forum, but not at this site. I had no intent and certainly no desire to give the impression you were somehow wrong in what you did. I applaud your actions. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"The original Gulf War resolutions explicitly said that Iraq was to be driven out of Kuwait and that the object was NOT to over-throw the Iraqi government. Yet the US is claiming these resolutions, and the newer 1441 which deals only with 'weapons of mass destruction', as authority to force 'regime change' in Iraq."
Those would be the same resolutions putting the sanctions in effect? The way I see it, he agreed to a cease-fire with certain terms. If he violates those terms, the cease-fire is no longer in effect. Phoenix-D |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
To those who still hold to the position "No WAR for OIL" or "Stop Bombing the Iraqi people",
I urge you to consider the following article carefully: Link: I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam A powerful first-person report of the true condition of the population of Iraq, and the opinion of its people. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by DavidG:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by Mephisto:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DavidG: Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Are there any stats for the number of deaths occuring in Iraq before, compared to now?
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Why do you insist that anyone that doesn't support this war is pro-Saddam?
I've found many similarities between Saddam's regime and the military dictatorship we had here in Argentina not so long ago. So I think I have an idea of how Iraqis feel. Yes most Iraqis are against Saddam and would like to change the regime. But they don't want to be bombed and invaded either. Now not only they fear Saddam but also fear Americans. When you have to choose between a foreign potency that is bombing and invading your cities and a local dictator backed up by local propaganda many will help to repel the invaders. The US doesn't care about human rights, and as some have posted before Americans have done very little to support democracies around the world. Links to 9-11 are vague and inconsistent. This war is about oil, about consolidating a new pro-American world order, about American economy, about the strong threatening the weak. BTW the so feared WMD haven't been found yet what strongly suggest they never existed. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Not to mention the jury is still very much out on the chemical plant that was found outside of Najaf. That plant is just a little too unusual to be brushed aside. Latest press reports are that "nothing has been found", but what the coalition is really saying is "we aren't saying we found anything". That is a big difference that may be lost on the press. We've only been at the plant for a little over 24 hours. Not really had time to bring in the experts and the detailed equipment. There are a lot of questions that need answered about the facility. It's very likely that if we did find anything there or anywhere else at this point we would not be trumpeting the fact loudly. The biggest deterant to Sadaam (assuming he's still around) using the WMD's is that it would remove any sort of world opinion from his side. If nothing else he is a survivor and he is counting on that opinion to somehow bring a halt to the war before it's too late for him. If we broadcast the exsistance of a smoking gun at this point he loses what little credibility he has remaining, and most of his incentive not to order their use. On the other hand, we don't particularly need the world opinion to radically shift to continue the war so we don't really have a strong incentive to expose any evidence this early. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Leaks are beginning to show that the intercepts of 24 march (local) contained orders giving local commanders control of the “special” weapons. I think we could see limited use in the next 24 hours. I can only hope that the response will be so horrific that the Iraqi’s will hesitate to use them again. Published doctrine would call for a tactical device, but I doubt we would go that far. I would think that we would begin to use fuel air devices on the RG’s positions.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[ March 25, 2003, 03:02: Message edited by: DavidG ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
IT is an interesting tatic that the coliliton is using.
I see that they have linked up and blocked the south off.... Did anyone watch BBC on Sat night 1 am eastern standard time.... I was glued to the seat watching a 3 hour long fire fight ( they showed every minute of it.... ) I am also surprised that they have been using the Apahce's against fixed positions. Interesting. I feel that this is a doctrine flaw in a mobile weapon. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
One question I had is how bad are WMD when countries regularly use napalm, depleted uranium that aerosolizes *still radioactive* uranium to get into the lungs of soldiers (just because it's "depleted" only means it isn't useful for nuclear reactors anymore...not that it's not incredibly hot...isnt this gulf war syndrome?), and the new bombs that spray the incindiary mist that ignites, and sucks the air out of people's lungs due to the pressure differential (causing suffocation) as the oxygen burns up in an instant. Is that so much better than mustard gas? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
It is terrible that there are so many different ways to kill people. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The amount of spin being generated and then quoted is quite staggering at the moment. Its like everybody suddenly forgot what the first casualty of war is.
I remember in the first gulf war when the world was awed of the Patriot missiles, and the way they shot down Scuds. Several years later I saw a US miltary commander say the Patriots didn't account for a single Scud, that the whole thing was to give the impression that Israel was in no real danger so they would not worsen the conflict by entering it. I also remember the Kosovo/Serbia conflict. An Australian aid worker had been captured by the Serbs and was accused of being a NATO spy. This was of course denied by the west, and Malcom Fraser (an ex Australian Prime Minister) travelled to Yugoslavia and negotiated the release. When the aid worker was safely back in Sydney, Fraser admitted that the worker had been caught with maps where he was marking the location of Serbian troops. Yet during the whole incident the media was making out it was Serbian propaganda. Now as both sides seem to have access to some media the amount of utter sh!t spouting out from both sides is staggering. The pro-Iraqi claims are dismissed until hard evidence turns up, the pro-Coalition claims are set as fact until disproven. Then I can go to an Arab news site and the opposite is true. Either all journalists are morons or they all slant their work based on their chosen team or that just repeat what "leaked" documents and "unidentified" military officals are saying. I'm not going to believe anything for at least another five years, cause thats how long it'll take for any truth to come out. Askan |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
EDIT: The US still has not given any guarantee that they won't simply "try" their camp Xray prisoners in a kangaroo military court with no legal representation and no appeal, and then find them guilty and execute them. And that's just a drawn out, sanitised Version of taking them into a room and shooting them dead. And before you say that's impossible, it's not. It's one of the options they are considering. The refusal so far to give them legal counsel certainly does not bode well for a fair trial in the future. And before you say it's no more than they deserve for organising 9/11, that's bull****. Human rights apply to all humans, and it would be wrong to punish anyone for 9/11 until they have been properly tried and found guilty. But once again, George W proves that he is nothing more than a cheap bully who only cares about getting his own way. As for my comments about the images of war: I wanted to point out that depicting graphic and realistic bloody death as entertainment loses some of its appeal when contrasted with the real thing. [ March 25, 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by dogscoff:
Quote:
. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I may have agreed with you here a couple of years ago but at the moment I have my doubts. Its difficult for me to be sure, as I really don't understand what happens in South America as much as I'de like to, but the goings on in Venezuela seem to to have some US involvement. Askan |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And another thing, a democratic regime is in no way a stable regime. I just can't see with all the goodwill in the world, the US want that. i take an example: the US: first we have a regime that wants to destroy nuclear weapons in the world.(and its own weapons) 4 years later we have a regime that cancels the treaty and produces even more WMD. And this was just an example, every democracy is like that. (not only USA) And about the WMD. Why didn't the US took any steps to prevent the israeli get them? So, does that mean that only US supporters can have WMD? And Last, there were no ties proven with terrorist organisations. And its also very objective, US is known to support everyone in their cause, also terrorists... ally to you is terrorist to another. R. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
But the most important argument is that Israel had nukes for the Last 30 years, and have never used them. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Its more of a question about domestic politics and international pressure, with international pressure only going so far. For example, Indonesia could build them if they wanted to. Australia could easily do it, in fact our chief scientist during the 60s was a huge supporter of chemical, bioligical and nuclear weapons (none of which were -ve words back then). We even starting building a reactor capable of making weapons grade fissile material, but after the foundation was layed it was abandonded because of lack of support in the domestic politics of the day (change of government). Askan |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Axis of Evil
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the 'Axis of Evil', Libya, China and Syria today announced they had formed the 'Axis of Just As Evil', which they said would be 'eviller than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union Address.' Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really silly name. 'Oh, right. They are just as evil, are they? In their dreams!' declared North Korean leader Kim Jongle. 'Everybody knows we're the best at being evil... we're the tops.' Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they had asked if they could join the Axis of Evil. 'They told us it was full,' said Syrian President Basher Assad. 'An Axis can't have more than three countries,' explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. 'This is tradition. In World War II there were Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three.' International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift. Within minutes, France unilaterally surrendered to everybody. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical musical chairs. Rhodesia, Sudan and Serbia said they had formed the 'Axis of Truly Evil'. Somalia joined with Cuba and Burma in the 'Axis of Occasionally Evil', while South Africa, Indonesia and Russia established the 'Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Bloody Unpleasant'. With the criteria suddenly expanding and all the desirable clubs filling up, Turkey, El Salvador and Rwanda applied to be called the 'Axis of Countries That Aren't That Bad But Certainly Won't Ever Be Asked To Host the Olympics.' The European Union announced a twelve-strong 'Axis of Nations That Pretend To Be Quite Nice But In Fact Hate America.' France, Israel and Belgium formed the 'Axis of Countries Who Won't Complain About The Axis of Evil Because We Have Weapons To Sell Them.' -------------------------------------------------- President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting over there?" The barman says, "Yep, that's them." So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?" Bush says, "We're planning WW III ". And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?" Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis this time and one blonde with big tits. The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits? Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ***, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!" |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I’m not saying he’s a good guy, or that I’d like to live under his regime. But no dictator Lasts that long if he doesn’t count with some support from his people. Kurds were seen as seditious traitors to the country and fighting them was a way to show the loyal Iraqis they were protecting them. How’s that different than bombing Iraqis to “protect” Americans? Also don’t Americans agree that Kurds have no right to fight for their independence? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
But palestinians attacking israel doesn't affect us, it affects israelies. With israeli firepower, there is no excuse for us to fight their battles. As usual, if you wanted to target the real criminals who fund terrorist attacks *against the US* then you target the financiers in saudi arabia, not iraq.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
This from Reuters:
Reuters web page Tue March 25, 2003 08:22 AM ET By Luke Baker NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces are finding it only takes a handful of guerrillas to unnerve a fighting force. Sometimes, just shadows in the night will do. "Up, up, up," sentries screamed as they ran through a dusty engineers' camp at dead of night. "We're on 100 percent security." That meant: everyone to defensive positions at the camp near Najaf in central Iraq -- everyone, rather than the one in four already ordered to stay up all night to watch for danger. Soldiers who had been slumped over steering wheels, lying on the ground or on top of vehicles -- sleeping, or desperately trying to -- raced to man the artificial earth mounds, up to 15 feet high, that ring the desert camp. A score of militants armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were prowling the area less than half a mile away, scouts had reported. Some of the 200 soldiers here have already seen the hit-and-run raids by small militia Groups, some in civilian dress, which have emerged as a key Iraqi tactic in the 6-day-old war. Danger now looms everywhere, not just in obvious armed formations. Troops are on edge and are taking no chances -- but that brings its own risk. Fear and nerves might wear them down, depriving them of sleep and dulling their responses. For four hours, from midnight until before dawn, they waited, squinting in the hazy, faint moonlight to detect anything suspicious moving through the sand whipped up by strong winds. In the end, it was a false alarm. Had someone panicked by calling out the whole camp? "We have got to be careful and make sure we respond properly to our intelligence, that we don't overreact," Lt. Col. Paul Grosskruger, commander of the 94th Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division, told his officers. ANYTHING MOVING IS A THREAT Scouts no longer look for obvious armed units but for a threat from any quarter, and anything that moves in the desert scrub and the shabby irrigated fields is potentially hostile. Soldiers were up much of the night and were left exhausted, meaning missions ended up being delayed the next day. "This is the sort of thing that terrifies me. Your adrenaline starts pumping but you are tired and you are scared and you can't get back to sleep," soldier James Canaday, 22, from Oklahoma City, said as he returned from guard duty. Commanders are trying to find the balance between complacency and being alert to a very real danger. In the past 48 hours, U.S. forces around Najaf, about 90 miles south of Baghdad, have faced sniper attacks, assaults by small militant bands using mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and false surrenders that turn into attacks. "It puts everyone on edge," Grosskruger said. "It's a tactic that can take its toll on soldiers. You have to stay alert and awake all the time, and you're always worried that the threat is there," said Lt. Mark Pietrak of the 535th Engineers Company. He said he and a group of soldiers went only a few miles from camp on Sunday evening to find water. A grenade was thrown at their vehicles and they had to take cover in the scrub. It was eight hours before they got back. Farmers, goatherds and other civilians cautiously watch the invading forces from the fields or from brick hovels, sometimes crowding round their vehicles begging. That now scares soldiers, many of whom had expected a heroes' welcome. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
The official administration opinion is against an independant Kurdistan. The hope is for free, democratic Iraqi that represents the interests of all the various ethnic Groups. Admitadly, it is a lofty goal. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Its in the eye of the beholder, to one they are "freedom-fighters" to the other they are terrorists. R. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
20/20 hinsight? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif The Last 30 years have been "less hostile" because of the nukes! You take the nukes out of the equation and we would be talking not just of the '67 and '73 wars, but of the '79, '85 and a war every six years (that's what it took to an Arab country to replenish losses during the Cold War) So in Israel's case nukes have saved lots of lives, both Arab and Jewish. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Posted by Some1:
Quote:
Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent! But it isn't like the USA could afford to sit in Kuwait with 250,000+ troops for ever - that's a lot of mouths to feed, that's a lot of resources/money! And sitting in the middle east with 250k+ soldiers is a diplomatic nightmare, so it's a no win situation... vocal Arabs will be mad if the US invades Iraq, but they'll be mad if the US is even just present in the middle east. When it was the UN forces with US troops amongst them, it was the same catch-22. So what is the solution? It's fine to be against war. I'm definitely against war. Unfortunately sometimes war is the only answer short of the second coming (and I'm pretty sure "Dubbya" doesn't have that much authority http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) Please, tell me, what could have been done instead? If you can give me an answer, I'll go on a peace march. Until then, I have no choice but to support this war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif [ March 25, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well, I dislike the endless discussions, specially when feel that have no opportunity to change the mind of the other person(s). This is the main reason, because I mostly ignored this topic.
Anyway, today feel myself more cynical than other days, and will post some of my thoughts... is somewhat long, then, you could ignore this post and I'll be fine! Some things I consider Facts. ============================= a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal. Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food? b) From the times of the first civilizations to our days, the WAR always was with us, and will be here until the extinction of the mankind. Examples? The list of wars would be endless... and think does not exist evidence that would finish some day. c) A country doesn't need "good" reasons to invade / attack other country. Of course that doesn't need a good excuse, because a bad one would work fine. The ONLY what a nation need, is enough POWER (it mean money, technology, army, political alliances, etc) to carry out the attack and resist the international pressures or counter attacks. Somebody could object that in the western democracies of our times, the crowd need a "good reason", my point is that the mass of people can be manipulated just clicking the right "buttons". d) The Moral has little to be with the International Relations. Is pretty obvious that the moral issues are pointless when we talk about international relations. From Machiavelli to our days, everybody know that the "raisons du êtat" are more strong than any moral objection. Example: If you kill somebody driving while you're drunk, probably you will go to the jail... but nobody will go to the jail, if a missile kill civilian people (yea, everybody know that the "colateral damage" can't be avoided!). Well, I admit that if a country lose a war the persons involved with "collateral damage" can be judged as a criminals... but remember: ONLY the losers are criminals! Example 2: somebody has doubts that a free country committed with the democracy as USA, used the CIA to change democratic governments for dictatorships, just because those new governments would be pro-USA? It happened in my own country and in most of the South America countries during the 70s. USA did not this because is evil... did it because considered that was the best to server their purposes. e) To live in peace, a nation need to be prepared to fight or at least have powerful allies. This is old like the life: the big fish eat the small fish... Objections? f) In terms of power, USA is the Roman Empire of our times. Is the first power in the world, and doesn't exist a 2nd power. Don't think somebody could object this. Have USA the right to Invade Iraq? ================================== Based on the "facts" I wrote above, is pretty obvious to me, that USA have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT!) to invade Iraq and attack / invade every other country that could be considered a target or menace. If USA could use the UN as shield to carry out his actions, yes, would be better for USA try to keep an appearance of legality , but if not... what the hell!! What I dislike ============== I think in some way, USA try to justify his acts with some hypocrisy... but of course that my stupid objections are pure BullS###t considering the "fact" c). Here some of the published reasons, and my opinions (irrelevant opinions!). 1) "Operation Iraqui Freedom" think is a bad name... sounds a bad joke to me. They had free elections and Saddam got all the votes!!! Yes, Saddam is a tyrant, a sanguinary one, and so what? If the goal of this war, is release the people of Iraq, then, why Bush father didn't removed Saddam after the first war in the gulf? Why nobody helped the Kurdish and Shiites that started revolts against Saddam after the first war in the gulf? And finally, as others wrote here, USA have/had many tyrants as allies, and it not mean that USA will invade those countries to release the local population (well, Panama was an exception!). 2) Because Iraq is a menace to USA. Still I want to know how Iraq could hurt USA. Using Scuds? With those old 60's missiles? With anthrax or Chemicals? Then, how they could spread it to cause enough damage? With those old rusky tanks? Using Nukes? hehehe, although somebody would decide to use it some day, everybody knows the reprisals after an attack against USA (do you remember Afghanistan?). Yes, I think that Saddam was (and I'm saying was, because has not many days to live) a menace for his people and for his neighbors, agree. But for USA? Remember to me the Grand Fenwick! N.Korea claim to have Nukes that could use in "preventive attacks"... and can bet 100 to 1, to everybody want on this board, that the US marines will not put their foots in NK. 3) Because Saddam have links with Al-Quaida, and probably helped to do the 9/11 attack. The arguments to support this, that I was able to read/hear seems very weak to me, honestly. And although both have common enemies, Saddam is an heretic for Ossama just a bit better than the "Great Satan" 4) Because Iraq has not filled the UN resolutions and still had WMD. A good reason... but the question is that the UN decided to continue with the inspections instead to authorize a new attack against Iraq. This is related with the next argument: 5) USA doesn't need to have a new UN resolution, because still they're at war from 1991, due Iraq doesn't filled the conditions to sign the peace. Then I ask, why so many words so many pressures to get the enough votes in the UN, to authorize a new attack? What Think are the probably Reasons for this war ================================================ The polls in most the world, show that the people doesn't agree with this war. Only in USA is popular and think I know the reason: the 9/11. IMHO this is the clue. First all, think the "hawks" in the Pentagon / White House, used the 9/11 to move the machine war and get the strength to impose the "preventive doctrine". Second, specifically about the reasons of this war: 1) The Oil of course. Is not a secret that Iraq is an strategic place and have one of the biggest reserves of "crude". Is not a secret that "to save Kwait" was not the main reason to save them from Saddam in the frist war in the gulf. 2) To show to other enemies what USA can do if a country have an hostile attitude... and show that support the terrorism against USA will involve a great danger. 3) Bush need to show to his country, that the crusade against the Terrorism, "The War on Terror", has not finished and he will fulfill their promises to annihilate the terrorism. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
From the NY TIMES... Interesting article
Channels of Influence By PAUL KRUGMAN y and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here. Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration. The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has Banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves. The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control. Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation. Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the Last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television. Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire. There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf? What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Perhaps the best hope of a swift resolution between the warring sides would be some sort of "peace deal" that would allow both sides to save face.
Saudi Arabia, according to the Agonist, is floating such a proposal. No details have been released, and none of the major media outlets had run stories, but Riyadh was supposedly still waiting to hear back from the two respective capitals (DC and Baghdad -- Bush's lackeys in London get no respect). Problem is, I can't imagine a scenario in which Bush could halt the war and still "save face". Indeed, this war was predicated in large part to the argument that withdrawing US forces massed in the Gulf region without utilizing them would be "losing face". Any resolution to this conflict that would leave Saddam in power would be clearly unacceptable to Bush. But, how about this: Saddam steps down and takes exile in Bahrain (which has graciously offered). A government of "national unity" takes control, with no (or token) representation from the Baath Party. This new government promises a full accounting of Iraq's WMD program. In return, the US must withdraw all forces from Iraq. Would Bush agree to this? If he didn't, it would be conclusive proof that the US isn't there for freedom, democracy, or any of that other bull (otherwise, why is Uzbekistan listed in the "coalition of the willing"?), but for military domination of a vital economic and strategic region. Hopefully we'll hear more about this Peace Plan soon. taken from http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002143.html An Interesting question. I would like to dicuss it. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html
an interesting article about the prisoners and the Taliban prisoners... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Another well written post jimbob. I couldn't agree more.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Has anyone read
Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999) |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Sounds interesting...... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
google Unrestricted Warfare pdf
you will find it |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
A random quote from the net....
repost: interesting thought: first the war was "a war on terrorism" because of the 9-1-1 attack (completely unrelated to iraq) after we found no proof of that, it became a war "because iraq has weapons of mass destruction" (which was also unfounded to date) finally after no proof of either one of those was found...it became our duty to free the iraqi people. free them from what? and by bombing them? does anyone know why we are at war right now...the REAL reason? i am reminded why every time i head to the gas station to re-fuel my vehicle so that my capatolist goverment will survive one more day. it's only a matter of time before this all comes crashing down around us anyway, why are we wasting the time and energy? if anyone feels that this is unfounded, please convince me otherwise. my confidence and trust in my own government has been greatly swayed by the lies and propaganda that indended to grab my support. when will they stop treating us all like children the night before christmas, and tell us the truth for once. chances are, i am going to support the truth (regardless of right/wrong issues) before i will support lies. anyone else feel the same way? if our governement were to say..."hey...we need the oil...and war is good for the economy"...i don't have to agree with it to support it. it's called "united we stand...devided we fall". ...the only true freedom lies in truth. Posted by curiousgeorge at March 25, 2003 02:23 PM Bah I post too much here.... Anyways my Posts feel like the CBC.... Damm... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have some trouble understanding the logic here. When you use "threat of force" to get someone (Saddam) to comply with your wishes. Shouldn't you then choose not to use the actual force when he complies. Doesn't attacking anyway ruin the "threat of force" as a weapon in the future, as it now will be obvious for all bad-guys that him complying or not will have no influx on the decission to use that force ? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Re: tesco
The thing is, the scenario where saddam must exit iraq is lose/lose for him. There is no provision he can take his country back if they find no wmd (would anyone believe anti-saddam people saying "hey we found some wmd"? Do I believe my US govt if they say "hey we found some wmd?" Not really...I believe the embedded journalists, and I bet the govt is kicking itself for embedding them...maybe Id believe the international community running the country, but then no one wants to do that, cause it isnt in the UN charter. I believed Hans Blix, but he had no time...) and there is no guarentee that the US wouldnt try to extradite or somehow *still* go after Saddam after he is flushed out of baghdad. If I were saddam, Id cling to power as long as possible and hope world pressure builds enough force to stop the war before it kills me. Otherwise, Id probably die in the bunker, and not use WMD (Blix and others belive that he won't use them because he feels he has an important standing in the community as the leader of the "cradle of civilization") [ March 25, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: phaet2112 ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"(Blix and others belive that he won't use them because he feels he has an important standing in the community as the leader of the "cradle of civilization")"
This would be slightly more relevent if he hadn't already done so (though IMO calling most chem weapons WMD is pushing things a bit) Phoenix-D |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
RE: the NY Times "Rally for America" article.
The original idea did not come from ClearChannel, but from a morning talk host at a Dallas-Fort Worth AM station. ClearChannel talk show host Glenn Beck picked up on it and began organizing rallies in 3 to 4 major population centers distributed fairly evenly around the country. Interest shot through the roof, as listeners began pestering their local channels to host their own rallies or to arrange transport to one of Beck's rallies. Beck has since organized around 15 or 20 rallies, with dozens more held around the country by local stations, including one here in Orlando (not all ClearChannel stations). Most recently, a 16-year old girl in Minnesota organized her own rally, held this Last Saturday, to which 3500 people came (in mid-March in Minnesota). Over 100,000 have attended rallies with Beck, and no one has estimates on total national attendance. Beck is currently considering one final rally in the nation's capital. It is interesting that the Times published this article. Even NPR (that bastion of conservative thought http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) backed away from doing an article when they found that ClearChannel had no corporate direction in the rallies. Oops, I forgot. There is no liberal bias in the media, only conservative. As if all corporations were GOP-owned and operated and tithed of their earnings to the RNC. The only thing that really matters to the vast majority (~99%) of corporations is $$$$$$$. If something will bring in money, they'll support it. It wouldn't matter if Beck's show consisted of quoting Cajun recipes in Pig Latin; if it sold advertising, they'd support it. Beck, incidentally, frequently rips the GOP and Bush for policies with which he differs. If ClearChannel really is in lockstep with the President, they sure have a lot of cleaning up to do at home. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
- Because this war triggers even more hate in the region/world against USA & the west. So you end with more problems then you start with. (look at the little flash like i gave before) - Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you. - Because this war gives the right to countries like Turkey to invade north Irak, cause they tread their country too. Even North Korea to invade South, China- tibet, Russia-formerSU countries....etc. everyone is a tread to the other in their opinion (with war or thoughts). What USA does, make it legimate for them too. - Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now) - Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals. - Because it is hypocrite to remove a regime like iraq for the iraqi people and let the palestinians die. If the US would help them and would try to prevent the harmful israeli politicy from doing what they do now, US would have their UN resolution. And their would be a lot less USA hate in the world. Because all the Arabian countries hate Sadam too.. they just hate USA more now... - Because if GWB would really care about people, he would have donated all that money in a fund to help everyone in the world, with so much money he could almost make everyone in africa/asia/middle east "rich"/have food (and they are in a situation as bad/worse as the iraqi people) and as dangerous in long term. When people have it better then they have now, they are better fed/educated etc. that means that they are less extreme (cause extremes only occur when people are in a bad situation) and terrorist actions would be a LOT less frequent. Terrorist organisations loose their support..etc. Conclusion: because there is not UN support for this, it means its illegal... and give the sign for more chaos & war. i hope i'll see you in the next march http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Quote:
R. [ March 26, 2003, 00:20: Message edited by: Some1 ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.