NationStates Jolt Archive

For not letting the Red Cross enter Faluya. For giving the order to kill everybody which passes your limits, even if it's volunteers trying to get children out of the city to give them water and food.

Don't bother to deny it, a volunteer from Doctors without Frontiers (Médicos Sin Fronteras) has phoned to the Spanish radio to tell about the real situation.

And then you lie about your own dead soldiers. And then you don't let the cameras go in because you know that the truth will reveal your citizens what your government really is.

Thank you USA, for being the biggest genocides just for the sake of your own economical interests.

FOR LIFE. FOR PEACE. FOR TRUTH. STOP THE WAR, STOP THE USA MADMEN

Thank you genocides, thank you for just thinking in your own interests and letting everybody around the world die for them.

Thank you Halliburton, thank you Mr.Bush.

The worst thing is that they're stopping people getting out of the city only now. They decided to attack Falluja... sat outside it for a month saying "We're going to launch an assault on Falluja"... so all the terrorists/insurgents/whatever escape and go elsewhere... then the USA go in and only now are stopping people leaving.

It's almost like they WANT the insurgents to survive. (Not a conspiracy theory, just in case anyone jumps on that, it was just an expression of how ridiculous the whole thing was.)

The worst thing is that they're stopping people getting out of the city only now. They decided to attack Falluja... sat outside it for a month saying "We're going to launch an assault on Falluja"... so all the terrorists/insurgents/whatever escape and go elsewhere... then the USA go in and only now are stopping people leaving.

It's almost like they WANT the insurgents to survive. (Not a conspiracy theory, just in case anyone jumps on that, it was just an expression of how ridiculous the whole thing was.)

For some reason, that never clicked. lol, the sheer stupidity of it...

What? War is terrible? What?

The worst thing is that they're stopping people getting out of the city only now. They decided to attack Falluja... sat outside it for a month saying "We're going to launch an assault on Falluja"... so all the terrorists/insurgents/whatever escape and go elsewhere... then the USA go in and only now are stopping people leaving.

It's almost like they WANT the insurgents to survive. (Not a conspiracy theory, just in case anyone jumps on that, it was just an expression of how ridiculous the whole thing was.)

I thought the whole point of camping outside and saying that they were going in was so families could leave?

You are welcome. I guess we should have left you under the thumb of Saddam. :headbang:

And then you lie about your own dead soldiers. And then you don't let the cameras go in because you know that the truth will reveal your citizens what your government really is.

Right. This is why forumgoers were up in arms about the AP photographer who was taking pictures of insurgents while they were attacking US soldiers because he happens to have an Arab name and "did nothing" to stop the insurgents... which btw is his job -- to take pictures, and not sides.

At least try to present the facts accurately.

I thought the whole point of camping outside and saying that they were going in was so families could leave?exactly... see how selfish the USA is. They should've stormed in there like the heartless invaders everyone is calling them. Hit the city while the civilians are still inside... by being selfish and letting those potential civilian casualties escape... they'll never hit the popular goal of 100,000 civilians dead that everyone here is rooting for. instead, they let the civilians go and never mind that those NOBLE, BRAVE, FIGHTERS used the civilians as cover to escape, it's still the USA's fault that they got away. DON'T YOU READ THE THREADS? They claim their facts are truer than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOXNEWS.

I thought the whole point of camping outside and saying that they were going in was so families could leave?

Women and children only. No men aged between 15 and 55 were permitted to leave Falluja prior to or during the assault.

I thought the whole point of camping outside and saying that they were going in was so families could leave?

Good point. I didn't think of that aspect either, obviously.

They claim their facts are truer than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOXNEWS.

Ugh. I'm not really fussed about any of those except Fox, which is not news, it's propaganda.

Ugh. I'm not really fussed about any of those except Fox, which is not news, it's propaganda.To be fair, if you call Fox News Propaganda, You have to call the others the same. I watch them all and to me, the only difference between Fox News and CNN and the others is that FOX shows the good things happening in Iraq and gives them equal time with the bad. CNN and the others give the good a 2 to 3 second spot between mentioning how many US Soldiers die or who is kidnapped and beheaded.

To be fair, if you call Fox News Propaganda, You have to call the others the same. I watch them all and to me, the only difference between Fox News and CNN and the others is that FOX shows the good things happening in Iraq and gives them equal time with the bad. CNN and the others give the good a 2 to 3 second spot between mentioning how many US Soldiers die or who is kidnapped and beheaded.

I haven't watched it since the original Iraq invasion.

I stopped when the Fox news people stated "Those (antiwar) protesters were blocking traffic, they had to be roughed up!" and they all nodded in agreeance, joking about them sympathising with "terrorists". I was disgusted and as of that moment, I refuse to watch American media.

Another moment was on September 11th, when a significant portion of time was given to a group of about 100 people waving Palestinian flags and giving the impression that this was the Muslim sentiment worldwide...*sigh* I wonder how many impressionable viewers took it as gospel.

Don't bother to deny it, a volunteer from Doctors without Frontiers (Médicos Sin Fronteras) has phoned to the Spanish radio to tell about the real situation.

Lying, treehugging, liberal, atheist, hippies.

What? War is terrible? What?

You sir, are a legend.

I haven't watched it since the original Iraq invasion.

I stopped when the Fox news people stated "Those (antiwar) protesters were blocking traffic, they had to be roughed up!" and they all nodded in agreeance, joking about them sympathising with "terrorists". I was disgusted and as of that moment, I refuse to watch American media.

Another moment was on September 11th, when a significant portion of time was given to a group of about 100 people waving Palestinian flags and giving the impression that this was the Muslim sentiment worldwide...*sigh* I wonder how many impressionable viewers took it as gospel.the same type of people who listen to the attack on Fallujah and hear that 16 American Soldiers die during the attack on Fallujah... and that's it. no mention about that this was after 2 days of combat. After taking over half of the city... nope, just the American body count then a look at the greiving families of those lost soldiers... very balanced reporting from them... yep.

I'm not saying fox news is gospel. but to dis them because they dare to try to counter balance the other stations is just as closed minded as you accuse them of being.

Lying, treehugging, liberal, atheist, hippies.
And again, an American joins the discussion...

And again, an American joins the discussion...
:mad: Are you trying to insult me? This is flaming. :mad: You Bush.

the same type of people who listen to the attack on Fallujah and hear that 16 American Soldiers die during the attack on Fallujah... and that's it. no mention about that this was after 2 days of combat. After taking over half of the city... nope, just the American body count then a look at the greiving families of those lost soldiers... very balanced reporting from them... yep.

I'm not saying fox news is gospel. but to dis them because they dare to try to counter balance the other stations is just as closed minded as you accuse them of being.

No. It's important to be fair and objective in media, but Fox counteracts it with rampant bias. They don't report just facts, they load it with politics. In my example, they didnt report "Several protesters were detained by police today" (In the most politically unbiased language i can think of, the truth is probably something else) but instead they have to throw in "Those protesters had to be roughed up..."

And face it, what good news is there in Iraq? Not a lot...but from the position of your political agenda, It could be worse. CNN could be showing feature stories of children with limbs blown off and crying over dead parents.

From an ethical journalistic viewpoint, i'll say that American media is all shite. Not saying ours isn't much better, considering the same people own it. (Apart from our ABC which is attacked as its own source of "leftist" bias)

No. It's important to be fair and objective in media, but Fox counteracts it with rampant bias. They don't report just facts, they load it with politics. In my example, they didnt report "Several protesters were detained by police today" (In the most politically unbiased language i can think of, the truth is probably something else) but instead they have to throw in "Those protesters had to be roughed up..."

And face it, what good news is there in Iraq? Not a lot...but from the position of your political agenda, It could be worse. CNN could be showing feature stories of children with limbs blown off and crying over dead parents.

From an ethical journalistic viewpoint, i'll say that American media is all shite. Not saying ours isn't much better, considering the same people own it. (Apart from our ABC which is attacked as its own source of "leftist" bias)


Frankly this is why one would watch both sides, there is a lot of good being done in Iraq but very few news stations cover it. Sensationalism has been a primary tactic of the news media since Korea. The media only cares about two things whenever the US goes to war and one of those things isnt winning. (When we're winning no one cares to hear about war) So what are the two things? How bad are we losing? Can we make it seem worse for more viewers.

Granted Fox isnt 100% biased but they care about two things as well. How bad is it? Can we rosey up the picture any? This is why I choose to watch both sides every now and then. Somewhere in the middle is the truth and both sides seem to have forgotten that.

And face it, what good news is there in Iraq? Not a lot...but from the position of your political agenda, It could be worse. CNN could be showing feature stories of children with limbs blown off and crying over dead parents.
Lets see... when the schools opened up... when power to the city was restored... when the people (women included) could walk the streets fearing only suicide bombers... when the Iraqi police were patroling the streets BEFORE the US forces officially handed control back to them... When training for the Iraqi's military began... when people who were starving under the GLORIOUS and RIGHTOUS reign of Saddam got food for the first time... When the people there first received a CHOICE as to what T.V. / Radio stations they could listen to... Girls attending school for the first time... the list goes on. If you didn't hear of these... You should wonder why... perhaps, some stations felt you shouldn't know this?

From an ethical journalistic viewpoint, i'll say that American media is all shite. Not saying ours isn't much better, considering the same people own it. (Apart from our ABC which is attacked as its own source of "leftist" bias) NOW THAT I'LL DRINK TO. :D they are all equally Shit. However the other stations will pander to what their audience WANTS to hear. Fox (tho opinionated ) will give facts and then their opinions (which is still wrong, but they dont put their opinions buried in the news...)

Lets see... when the schools opened up... when power to the city was restored... when the people (women included) could walk the streets fearing only suicide bombers... when the Iraqi police were patroling the streets BEFORE the US forces officially handed control back to them... When training for the Iraqi's military began... when people who were starving under the GLORIOUS and RIGHTOUS reign of Saddam got food for the first time... When the people there first received a CHOICE as to what T.V. / Radio stations they could listen to... Girls attending school for the first time... the list goes on. If you didn't hear of these... You should wonder why... perhaps, some stations felt you shouldn't know this?




Um, I think you are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan on some of those. Women were always permitted education under Saddam. He was a secularist - not a theologist. In point of fact, the Interim government did their best to remove women's rights in order to bring Iraqi law more in line with Muslim principles, and such things as honour killings have actually become MORE prevalent in IRaq since the invasion.

From the standpoint of IRaqi women, the past year has brought them several large steps BACKWARDS from the rights they used to enjoy. Not forwards.

Lets see... when the schools opened up... when power to the city was restored... when the people (women included) could walk the streets fearing only suicide bombers... when the Iraqi police were patroling the streets BEFORE the US forces officially handed control back to them... When training for the Iraqi's military began... when people who were starving under the GLORIOUS and RIGHTOUS reign of Saddam got food for the first time... When the people there first received a CHOICE as to what T.V. / Radio stations they could listen to... Girls attending school for the first time... the list goes on. If you didn't hear of these... You should wonder why... perhaps, some stations felt you shouldn't know this?
And maybe some stations actually can tell Afghanistan apart from Iraq.

Lets see... when the schools opened up... when power to the city was restored... when the people (women included) could walk the streets fearing only suicide bombers... when the Iraqi police were patroling the streets BEFORE the US forces officially handed control back to them... When training for the Iraqi's military began... when people who were starving under the GLORIOUS and RIGHTOUS reign of Saddam got food for the first time... When the people there first received a CHOICE as to what T.V. / Radio stations they could listen to... Girls attending school for the first time... the list goes on. If you didn't hear of these... You should wonder why... perhaps, some stations felt you shouldn't know this?

OK good points, apart from what Zeppistan already said. Just think, it could have been done with international support 13 years ago :p

NOW THAT I'LL DRINK TO. :D they are all equally Shit. However the other stations will pander to what their audience WANTS to hear. Fox (tho opinionated ) will give facts and then their opinions (which is still wrong, but they dont put their opinions buried in the news...)

I disagree, I think it is buried in the reporting of Fox. But you're right, people will prefer to listen to something that caters to their particular ideology. I won't deny myself being guilty of this, because when I hear contrary bias, i'll usually get pissed off and change the channel, lol


Sensationalism has been a primary tactic of the news media since Korea.

Since William Randolph Hearst, Pulitzer and the Spanish American War, you mean :)

The media only cares about two things whenever the US goes to war and one of those things isnt winning. (When we're winning no one cares to hear about war) So what are the two things? How bad are we losing? Can we make it seem worse for more viewers.

Yeah, but bad news sells...and thats a symptom of corporate media unfortunately.

Somewhere in the middle is the truth and both sides seem to have forgotten that.

Hopefully. The truth could be somewhere else entirely. Who can know. lol

Excuse me?

For not letting the Red Cross enter Faluya. For giving the order to kill everybody which passes your limits, even if it's volunteers trying to get children out of the city to give them water and food.

Don't bother to deny it, a volunteer from Doctors without Frontiers (Médicos Sin Fronteras) has phoned to the Spanish radio to tell about the real situation.

One of the first things the troops did was secure a hospital. This hospital was immediately stocked with extra supplies to treat civilian casualties resulting from the impending military action. Women and children are being evacuated at their request.

And then you lie about your own dead soldiers. And then you don't let the cameras go in because you know that the truth will reveal your citizens what your government really is.

Lies about our dead soldiers? Please provide a reliable source that says our casualties are other than reported. With our internet savvy population and the numerous sites for families of soldiers, it would be pretty difficult to fudge those numbers without the families catching on.

I don't know why you've not seen film. Every major network around the world that I have seen has reporters embedded with the troops and are constantly sending film of the fighting and the atrocities left behind by the insurgents. Maybe you need to check into getting a TV?

Thank you USA, for being the biggest genocides just for the sake of your own economical interests.

USA madmen? If you are for life, peace, and truth, why would you not support going after a group of sadistic animals that have used torture, terror, imprisonment and murder to achieve their own supremacy? If the US is gaining so much economicaly, why are we in debt up to our eyeballs because of this war?

The worst thing is that they're stopping people getting out of the city only now. They decided to attack Falluja... sat outside it for a month saying "We're going to launch an assault on Falluja"... so all the terrorists/insurgents/whatever escape and go elsewhere... then the USA go in and only now are stopping people leaving.

It's almost like they WANT the insurgents to survive. (Not a conspiracy theory, just in case anyone jumps on that, it was just an expression of how ridiculous the whole thing was.)

The attack on Falluja was a last resort option if the insurgents did not lay down their arms and release the city and its people. This was the wish of the Iraqi government. If the US were calling the shots, we would have taken the city last spring. Hope was held that this could have been resolved peacefully, but the Iraqi government was left with no option but to clean out the city. Yes, the main leaders of the rebels have escaped and left their "disposables" to die in their stead, but now they are scattered and trying to rally forces again. This leaves them more out in the open and exposed for capture.

As stated above, women and children are being allowed to leave. Men are not being allowed to leave. As the civilians had over a month to evacuate, and almost 90% did, it seems reasonable that a majority of the ones who stayed had decided to stay and fight. Now that they're getting the butts whupped, they want to sneak out with the women and children. Typical cowardly behavior. They are being held until after the major fighting to be processed, which will include checking for traces of explosive residue on their persons.

Thank you genocides, thank you for just thinking in your own interests and letting everybody around the world die for them.

Was it the US who detonated bombs in Madrid's subway killing 200, did the bombing in Satkhira, Bangladesh , attacked pilgrims in Pahalgam, Kashmir and Doda region, Kashmir, India, bombed and killed 38 people in Larba, Algeria , set off 3 bombs and killed 15 people in General Santos, Philippines, killed almost 400 people (mostly children) in the school seige in Beslan, Russia after previously crashing 2 commercials flights and setting off a subway explosion killing hundreds more, who slaughtered Netherland's writer Van Gogh in the street because they didn't like his topic...this list goes on and on and on ...and all of this without factoring in the suicide bombings in Israel or the 9/11 attacks in the US (that attack alone killed people from over 60 nations). Who is REALLY killing people around the world? The US along with Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Kingdom of Tonga have stood up and taken action against the groups that are attacking and murdering innocent people all over the world. thank you for just thinking in your own interests and letting everybody around the world die for them You seriously need to step back and take a good look at what is going on around the world before you start pointing fingers and condemning.

Um, I think you are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan on some of those. Women were always permitted education under Saddam. He was a secularist - not a theologist. In point of fact, the Interim government did their best to remove women's rights in order to bring Iraqi law more in line with Muslim principles, and such things as honour killings have actually become MORE prevalent in IRaq since the invasion.

From the standpoint of IRaqi women, the past year has brought them several large steps BACKWARDS from the rights they used to enjoy. Not forwards.

Women’s rights took a downturn in Iraq as the economy worsened due to U.N. economic sanctions, according to the BBC article. They lost their jobs and abandoned their education; nationwide, women’s literacy figure plummeted.

In an effort to draw support from the religious leaders and community, Saddam steered the country towards a decisively religious conservatism, according to the BBC article. Polygamy was legalized for Muslims, high schools were segregated by sex, and limits were imposed on women’s traveling. The most alarming is a 1990 amendment removing most penalties on ‘honor killings’ in which husband, brothers, or fathers killed women suspected of sexual misconduct to save the families’ ‘honor,’ according to the BBC article. Girls as young as 11 and 12 years old can be marked—even victims of rape, according to a April 19, 2003 Toronto Star article and a Pakistan Newswire article on Dec. 11, 2002.

Though the some of women of Iraq had more rights under Saddam than the women in neighboring Islamic countries, their treatment was hardly worth holding up as a world model. I doubt very seriously if the Kurdish women would feel they had more rights under Saddam.

Women’s rights took a downturn in Iraq as the economy worsened due to U.N. economic sanctions, according to the BBC article. They lost their jobs and abandoned their education; nationwide, women’s literacy figure plummeted.

In an effort to draw support from the religious leaders and community, Saddam steered the country towards a decisively religious conservatism, according to the BBC article. Polygamy was legalized for Muslims, high schools were segregated by sex, and limits were imposed on women’s traveling. The most alarming is a 1990 amendment removing most penalties on ‘honor killings’ in which husband, brothers, or fathers killed women suspected of sexual misconduct to save the families’ ‘honor,’ according to the BBC article. Girls as young as 11 and 12 years old can be marked—even victims of rape, according to a April 19, 2003 Toronto Star article and a Pakistan Newswire article on Dec. 11, 2002.

Though the some of women of Iraq had more rights under Saddam than the women in neighboring Islamic countries, their treatment was hardly worth holding up as a world model. I doubt very seriously if the Kurdish women would feel they had more rights under Saddam.

So, the UN sanctions that impoverished the country also had a detrimental effect on women. So Saddam was forced into political concessions to cement his power. This suprises you how? You did, of course, skip over CPA Order 39 that removed women's rights such as the right to divorce their husbands and some of their custodial rights regarding their children.

Nice of you to note though that this supposedly evil empire exceeded it's non-evil neighbours in this regard. I have not tried to hold it up as a world model, I just wanted to counter the claim that the previous poster made that they were not permitted education, or were forced to wear hajib, etc. Even your BBC quote only states that schools were segregated by sex. But women WERE still allowed to be educated whereas Naught Bits had stated: "Girls attending school for the first time".

That was false regarding Iraq.

Hey, there are still some proponents of gender-segregation in the schools here in the West....


As to the Kurds, they have had virtual autonomy since the no-fly zone was imposed. Has their women's rights improved markedly in this time? I do not know this, nor have I found any stories as to how they are treated under Kurdish custom. However the Kurds ARE Sunni Muslims, so I imagine that saddly their rights remain in line with those of the region.

Anyway, we are sidetracking.

I called Naughty Bits on a false statement. Nothing you have said is indicitive that (s)he was correct.

And here is the source BTW:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21321-2004Jan15&notFound=true)

For the past four decades, Iraqi women have enjoyed some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of strict Islamic legal doctrine known as sharia.

...

Some critics said the proposed law might exacerbate tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, already divided over other power-sharing issues in postwar Iraq, and could even destroy families that have intermarried between the two strains of Islam. Under Hussein, they said, the universal application of civil family law prevented such issues from sparking sectarian strife.

Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female retired judge and outspoken opponent of the new order, said Thursday that since 1959, civil family law had been developed and amended under a series of secular governments to give women a "half-share in society" and an opportunity to advance as individuals, no matter what their religion.

"This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages," Hakki said. "It will allow men to have four or five or six wives. It will take away children from their mothers. It will allow anyone who calls himself a cleric to open an Islamic court in his house and decide about who can marry and divorce and have rights. We have to stop it."

So, the UN sanctions that impoverished the country also had a detrimental effect on women. So Saddam was forced into political concessions to cement his power. This suprises you how? You did, of course, skip over CPA Order 39 that removed women's rights such as the right to divorce their husbands and some of their custodial rights regarding their children.

Nice of you to note though that this supposedly evil empire exceeded it's non-evil neighbours in this regard. I have not tried to hold it up as a world model, I just wanted to counter the claim that the previous poster made that they were not permitted education, or were forced to wear hajib, etc. Even your BBC quote only states that schools were segregated by sex. But women WERE still allowed to be educated whereas Naught Bits had stated: "Girls attending school for the first time".

That was false regarding Iraq.

Hey, there are still some proponents of gender-segregation in the schools here in the West....


As to the Kurds, they have had virtual autonomy since the no-fly zone was imposed. Has their women's rights improved markedly in this time? I do not know this, nor have I found any stories as to how they are treated under Kurdish custom. However the Kurds ARE Sunni Muslims, so I imagine that saddly their rights remain in line with those of the region.

Anyway, we are sidetracking.

I called Naughty Bits on a false statement. Nothing you have said is indicitive that (s)he was correct.

You are spinning what I said to suit your argument. I by no means implied that all of Iraq's neighbors are "non-evil". It's well noted that many of them have some of the worst human rights records in the world. I cannot speak for your country, but in the US our gender-segregated schools are private schools picked at the pleasure of the children's parents. Our public schools and universities are all co-ed.

As for the girls attending schools for the first time, it has been noted in the press that some of the girls in the Kurdish regions are attending schools for the first time. It might also be noted that since the coalition has moved in, schools have been repaired and built so that a lot of kids are going to school regularly for the first time. The troops found that a number of the schools, hospitals, and Mosques were being used for arms storage. Remember the picture a few months ago of the kids sitting in a classroom that had missles stacked along the walls?

I wasn't trying to prove NB's statement as true, but that the conditions were not nearly as rosey as you implied.

For not letting the Red Cross enter Faluya. For giving the order to kill everybody which passes your limits, even if it's volunteers trying to get children out of the city to give them water and food.

Don't bother to deny it, a volunteer from Doctors without Frontiers (Médicos Sin Fronteras) has phoned to the Spanish radio to tell about the real situation.

And then you lie about your own dead soldiers. And then you don't let the cameras go in because you know that the truth will reveal your citizens what your government really is.

Thank you USA, for being the biggest genocides just for the sake of your own economical interests.

FOR LIFE. FOR PEACE. FOR TRUTH. STOP THE WAR, STOP THE USA MADMEN

So, Fallujah was just a happy little Utopia in the midst of all the Iraq chaos.


Really? Because I've seen an awful lot of photographs on the front page of the papers from Fallujah.

I've seen video from Fallujah.

I remember the first building we took in the city was the hospital. This was to ensure that the insurgents could not interfere with the medical aid being given.

A single doctor eh? Well, what is the real situation, instead of just saying some left-wing catchphrases.

Thank you America for pouring more money in aid to countries in need than any other nation in the world. Your right, the US is selfish.

For not letting the Red Cross enter Faluya. For giving the order to kill everybody which passes your limits, even if it's volunteers trying to get children out of the city to give them water and food.

Don't bother to deny it, a volunteer from Doctors without Frontiers (Médicos Sin Fronteras) has phoned to the Spanish radio to tell about the real situation.

And then you lie about your own dead soldiers. And then you don't let the cameras go in because you know that the truth will reveal your citizens what your government really is.

Thank you USA, for being the biggest genocides just for the sake of your own economical interests.

FOR LIFE. FOR PEACE. FOR TRUTH. STOP THE WAR, STOP THE USA MADMEN

actually, the original name of the organisation is "medecin sans frontieres", it was founded by french politician bernard kouchner, who supported the attack of Iraq, at least until the USA decided to go there without the UN aproval.

And I wouldn't call 1 volunteer that noone ever heard about, except, maybe, his near family, a sure source that cannot be denied.


The war may be criticized, the invasion is illegal because not supported by the UN, so I don't support it. But this thread is not based on trustable information sources, therefore there is no point in discussing it until we have some confirmation from a real information source.

If the US is gaining so much economicaly, why are we in debt up to our eyeballs because of this war?


No, the USA is in debt up to its eyeballs because of continual and utterly flabergasting economic mismanagement, this war is a drop in an ever expanding ocean of mind blowing stupidity. But dont worry every country is guilty of this, although the USA is certainly out shining everyone else at it.

And may i piont out that news networks such as FOX are not a new thing, with footage of Tibet being "liberated" shown at the time. Youll be struck by the similarity as you see black and white footage of poor peasent people jumping up and down happilly as communism sweeps into their nation.

My last piont (thats a lie, but ill not write anything else (thatll make you ahppy :D)) is that i cannot understand what is wrong with taking a "leftist" view to the news, after all no-one has ever died because of the Kyto Protocol or from planting a few forests.

Thank you America for pouring more money in aid to countries in need than any other nation in the world. Your right, the US is selfish.

Nope sorry thats stupid too, thank you America for causing the problems you now altruistically heal ITS CALLED CLEARING UP YOUR OWN MESS, something we in the UK have experience of not doing :D.

Nope sorry thats stupid too, thank you America for causing the problems you now altruistically heal ITS CALLED CLEARING UP YOUR OWN MESS, something we in the UK have experience of not doing :D.

What about instances where we didn't make the mess, say when we cleaned up Hitler's mess. Or how about WWI and how only FINLAND payed us their war debts back. Talk about free money.

Bush (for brains) had the right idea -- to get rid of So Damn Insane -- but went about it the wrong way.

Thank you America for pouring more money in aid to countries in need than any other nation in the world. Your right, the US is selfish.

The US contributes 0.2% of its GDP. Many other nations contribute a higher percentage...

War debts indeed, since when should the liberated pay for their liberation. Everyon cleaned up Hitlers mess, and may i remind you that the USA only chipped in to stop Russia, the USA was planning to trash Germany and Japan economically and leave, and you're damn lucky they didnt cos that would have made every argumenet you put forward pale in the face of this obvious lunacy... and please research the policies of the WTO and the World Bank(s) theyve ruined more than one african country.

What about instances where we didn't make the mess, say when we cleaned up Hitler's mess. Or how about WWI and how only FINLAND payed us their war debts back. Talk about free money.

Actually, the US did receive substantial payment, at least in WW2.

A quick search revealed this much-

"The British owned Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States."

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/public_html/public_html/more_facts.html#lesser_known_misc_facts

But you'll be definitely able to find more detailed info elsewhere.

War debts indeed, since when should the liberated pay for their liberation. Everyon cleaned up Hitlers mess, and may i remind you that the USA only chipped in to stop Russia, the USA was planning to trash Germany and Japan economically and leave, and you're damn lucky they didnt cos that would have made every argumenet you put forward pale in the face of this obvious lunacy... and please research the policies of the WTO and the World Bank(s) theyve ruined more than one african country.
In WWI it wasn't charging the liberated for liberation. We were charging for bills racked up on their tab. France borrowed a whole lot from the US during WWI and didn't pay a whole lot back.

There was a paper that was released in Canada that called for a "pastoral Germany." There were several high ranking US government offiicials associated with this paper. Many of whom found themselves without a job shortly thereafter. This Nazis used this paper as a propaganda tool. This paper was never official government position.

Even though we offered Marshall Plan aide to the USSR? They turned it down, yes, but we offered. And not just that, the USSR never payed back the money it owed the US in the form of equipment and monetary loans.

Actually, the US did receive substantial payment, at least in WW2.

A quick search revealed this much-

"The British owned Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States."

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/public_html/public_html/more_facts.html#lesser_known_misc_facts

But you'll be definitely able to find more detailed info elsewhere.
WWII yes because we issued a cash-and-carry policy. We didn't allow nations to borrow on loan.

WWII yes because we issued a cash-and-carry policy. We didn't allow nations to borrow on loan.

And not just that, the USSR never payed back the money it owed the US in the form of equipment and monetary loans.

Huh?

Holy Crap Im Running Out Of Tinfoil!!!!

It is not America in general, but more so George BUSH. Granted they were stupid enough leave him in, but you to feel somewhat sorry for them and their stupidity along with their prediciment.


HALLIBURTON - root of all Evil (Chenney)

Huh?
"Huh?" on what part.

Prior to WWII, the US allowed belligerent nations to purchase American Arms and resources, just so long as they paid with cash. Which is why the Brits were liquidating those resources, for more cash. It was actually a loosening up of the rules. Here is a site with some info about it.

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter18section2.rhtml

We loaned the USSR a LOT of money, capital and equipment. We got jack squat back from the buggers. For example, the Motor and Track designs of the T-34 were American. The russians used over 10,000 Bell Airacobras, an American made plane, and they never gave them back or payed for them or anything. This is totally disregarding monetary loans. And what do we get in thanks from Stalin? A half century of cold war.

HALLIBURTON - root of all Evil (Chenney)
Maybe it might not be Halliburton's vice-Presidential connections that get it good no-bid contracts. Maybe they are the best at what they do.

Let's all remember that Halliburton got a no-bid contract to rebuild the former Yugoslavia from the Clinton administration.

You guys really cant be more original than that? All of this has been said and beaten in a million times over. Was it better when Saddam was in power?

I think the new doctrine in America should be to reinstate isolationism and place it to the most extreme of proportions. Since there is no apparent need for the US in the world, we'll just take our economic assistance and leave the world alone. I don't think the world will mind either.

It is not America in general, but more so George BUSH. Granted they were stupid enough leave him in, but you to feel somewhat sorry for them and their stupidity along with their prediciment.


HALLIBURTON - root of all Evil (Chenney)

I can't find your superior intellect. We re-elected Bush because he is one of the only world leaders who will stand up against a world that that wishes to ignore human rights altogether. A nation like Cuba should not be dictating human rights policies for the UN.

FACT: Kerry advisers had money invested in Halliburton.

It is not America in general, but more so George BUSH. Granted they were stupid enough leave him in, but you to feel somewhat sorry for them and their stupidity along with their prediciment.


HALLIBURTON - root of all Evil (Chenney)

:(

I just wanted to point out that not all of us voted to keep Bush. Maybe you can call us stupid for keeping him, and I'll agree that about half of our population was, but the rest of us were smart enough to realize who was best for our country. I voted for Kerry and can't understand why the other half of the population chose to re-elect him. But let's not start on another whole Bush/Kerry debate. I doubt any of us have the patience for it again.

I can't find your superior intellect. We re-elected Bush because he is one of the only world leaders who will stand up against a world that that wishes to ignore human rights altogether. A nation like Cuba should not be dictating human rights policies for the UN.

FACT: Kerry advisers had money invested in Halliburton.

You re-elected Bush because it was in your interest to do so. How has Bush improved Human rights? How is he attempting to improve Human rights?

The US contributes 0.2% of its GDP. Many other nations contribute a higher percentage...

That's because their GPD's aren't as big. I don't know the exact amounts, but America, even if it's not the largest contributor, does give higher actual amounts of money than other countries.

How it is possible that millions of people are so... so STUPID that they vote Bush? Another four years, why? Here we just wonder...

How it is possible that millions of people are so... so STUPID that they vote Bush? Another four years, why? Here we just wonder...

Personally, I don't like Bush all too much and on certain things. But playing devil's advocate for a moment, many people may have seen Kerrry as not much better of an alternative. A lot of Americans didn't really know where he stood on all of his issues. Other Americans fell for the Bush propoganda and opponent bashing. Some simply don't feel comfortable changing presidents in the midst of a war. Other's remember thing other than Iraq, (Something a lot of people are having trouble doing these days) and see him as a president to stuck a boot up the ass (Thank you Toby Keith) of some terrorists. (Remember that place called Afganistan?) The people who did vote for Bush had their reasons, some of them are quite stupid, but with the others, it's just a matter of how you view the issues.

How it is possible that millions of people are so... so STUPID that they vote Bush? Another four years, why? Here we just wonder...
Anaylze your statement and you may begin to comprehend why.

I think the new doctrine in America should be to reinstate isolationism and place it to the most extreme of proportions. Since there is no apparent need for the US in the world, we'll just take our economic assistance and leave the world alone. I don't think the world will mind either.

well, if you really want to be isolationnist, start by keeping your CO2 emissions home.

That's because their GPD's aren't as big. I don't know the exact amounts, but America, even if it's not the largest contributor, does give higher actual amounts of money than other countries.


it's funny, but I always thought it would be normal that the wealthiest ones help more the poorest ones. But well, I can't blame you, since the new tax policy seems to agree with you that what counts is the amount, not the %. All tax payers give the same amount of money, and those who cannot go to jail :)

it's funny, but I always thought it would be normal that the wealthiest ones help more the poorest ones. But well, I can't blame you, since the new tax policy seems to agree with you that what counts is the amount, not the %. All tax payers give the same amount of money, and those who cannot go to jail :)

What? No they don't.

:(

I just wanted to point out that not all of us voted to keep Bush. Maybe you can call us stupid for keeping him, and I'll agree that about half of our population was, but the rest of us were smart enough to realize who was best for our country. I voted for Kerry and can't understand why the other half of the population chose to re-elect him. But let's not start on another whole Bush/Kerry debate. I doubt any of us have the patience for it again.
I in absentia voted for kerry for your info. Halliburton may not have been corrupt when they started but managed to get pretty far down the tubes in a matter of years.

How it is possible that millions of people are so... so STUPID that they vote Bush? Another four years, why? Here we just wonder...
So because I disagree with you I am stupid. Wonderful. Spoken like a true fascist to be.

You see, I don't like points about Bush, but from a good bit of research I found Kerry to be a goodly amount worse. And I did do research. I read three newspapers a day leading up to the election. I debated on the internet. I saw BOTH candidates. So, I'd have to say that I'm fairly well informed and NOT stupid.

Might as well address the stereotype that only rednecks voted for Bush. I was born and raised in a well-off suburb. I am currently a first year student at Ohio State University. I got accepted into ivy league, but didn't go because of the cost. I am paying for a large portion of my education with an academic merit scholarship. I'm at best a nominal Christian. Never had a fundamentalist thought in my life. So, let's just lay off the stereotypes, eh?

What? No they don't.

d'oh! that was an extreme view of what Bush policies seem to tend to in long term. Of course it is not like that right now, thank god some previous US presidents were intelligent enough to build something that's not so bad, it'll take time to completely destroy it :)

it's funny, but I always thought it would be normal that the wealthiest ones help more the poorest ones. But well, I can't blame you, since the new tax policy seems to agree with you that what counts is the amount, not the %. All tax payers give the same amount of money, and those who cannot go to jail :)
What? What is your source, because I know my parents pay a goodly amount more than other people because my dad was successful in college, got a good job and stuck with it.

d'oh! that was an extreme view of what Bush policies seem to tend to in long term. Of course it is not like that right now, thank god some previous US presidents were intelligent enough to build something that's not so bad, it'll take time to completely destroy it :)
hopefully longer than 4 years, unless next thing you know, we are declared a dictatorship or Bush somehow finds some more ways around the laws.

hopefully longer than 4 years, unless next thing you know, we are declared a dictatorship or Bush somehow finds some more ways around the laws.
or maybe you're just falling to the typicaly left-wing fallacy of thinking that if a conservative is elected he'll just tear down all of your precious social equity shit and make the world into a dictatorship. None of which I have heard of happening.

or maybe you're just falling to the typicaly left-wing fallacy of thinking that if a conservative is elected he'll just tear down all of your precious social equity shit and make the world into a dictatorship. None of which I have heard of happening.

I'm very interested to see what conservatives have against social equality.

Oh no! People being equal? THAT CANNOT HAPPEN! GOD HATES FAGS AND HIPPIES!
:rolleyes:

I'm very interested to see what conservatives have against social equality.

Oh no! People being equal? THAT CANNOT HAPPEN! GOD HATES FAGS AND HIPPIES!
:rolleyes:
verry intelligent. I will have you k now i was only saying that because he likes to steal elections. This is also not a debate about a president

I'm very interested to see what conservatives have against social equality.

Oh no! People being equal? THAT CANNOT HAPPEN! GOD HATES FAGS AND HIPPIES!
:rolleyes:
I've never said that conservatives have anything against it. So many liberals act like it's going to die if a conservative gets elected. It won't.

And there is only one moment when everyone is equal. The moment of their birth. All have equal potential, but some waste their potential. I do not believe there is anything to do with political beliefs or sexual orientation on this potential success. A hippy can do to himself whatever he pleases, just don't have him demand government aid for what he's up to. Same goes for homosexuals. I don't give a flying fuck about what they do in their bedrooms, but just because they are different from me doesn't mean they automatically get special treatment. Take responsibility for themselves is what I'm saying.

I've never said that conservatives have anything against it. So many liberals act like it's going to die if a conservative gets elected. It won't.

And there is only one moment when everyone is equal. The moment of their birth. All have equal potential, but some waste their potential. I do not believe there is anything to do with political beliefs or sexual orientation on this potential success. A hippy can do to himself whatever he pleases, just don't have him demand government aid for what he's up to. Same goes for homosexuals. I don't give a flying fuck about what they do in their bedrooms, but just because they are different from me doesn't mean they automatically get special treatment. Take responsibility for themselves is what I'm saying.

so you are saying if someoe is born rich is equal to someone born poor. No so mon ami. And in case you havent noticed the gap between classes isnt exactly shrinking. :mad:

Same goes for homosexuals. I don't give a flying fuck about what they do in their bedrooms, but just because they are different from me doesn't mean they automatically get special treatment. Take responsibility for themselves is what I'm saying.
But they don't want special treatment, they only want equal treatment. Equal treatment which is being denied to them because some Americans find homosexuality "icky."

But they don't want special treatment, they only want equal treatment. Equal treatment which is being denied to them because some Americans find homosexuality "icky."
"icky" I havent heard someone use that yet, but yes they only want quality

You see, in American culture (the true definer of marriage is culture after all) marriage is seen as something that exists between a man and a woman. There are varied reasons for this, and I subscribe to one of the non-religious theories. And. did simplify a bit too much.

It all depends on your cultural definition of marriage though, because for some it is a sworn bond between two individuals, this is more along the lines of thought of the proponents of gay marrige. Whilst I see it more along the lines as something that could THEORETICALLY result in children produced by two adults of opposite genders.

Nope sorry thats stupid too, thank you America for causing the problems you now altruistically heal ITS CALLED CLEARING UP YOUR OWN MESS, something we in the UK have experience of not doing :D.
Yeah, spending all that money on europe during the cold war was cleaning up our mess, cause we were soooo responsible for the Communist uprising resulting a country that killed waayyy more people than we ever have. Yep, course you weren't bitching then about the money spent, oh well.

so you are saying if someoe is born rich is equal to someone born poor. No so mon ami. And in case you havent noticed the gap between classes isnt exactly shrinking. :mad:

I think what he's saying is...

Someone born rich is equal to someone born poor in individual potential. A poor man can become rich, and a rich man can become poor.

d'oh! that was an extreme view of what Bush policies seem to tend to in long term.

Seem to tend in the long term? You can make this statement after, what, one tax cut? And not to mention that lower income people got a larger cut.

So...you don't know what you're talking about.

I think what he's saying is...

Someone born rich is equal to someone born poor in individual potential. A poor man can become rich, and a rich man can become poor.
read your post over agian. if you do carefully you will see ya contradict yourself ;)

Thank you for posting your opinion and not backing it up with any evidence on here.

Thank you Spain for pussing out and leaving Iraq after Al-quaida attacked you. Thank you Spain for not having the nuts to stand up to terrorism.

Thank you for posting your opinion and not backing it up with any evidence on here.

Thank you Spain for pussing out and leaving Iraq after Al-quaida attacked you. Thank you Spain for not having the nuts to stand up to terrorism.
i case you didnt notice some places actually think out thier moves and what consequences they will have in the long run. But when you only have a sub-par highschool education, things are a little bit harder to understand.

Nope sorry thats stupid too, thank you America for causing the problems you now altruistically heal ITS CALLED CLEARING UP YOUR OWN MESS, something we in the UK have experience of not doing :D.

May I remind you of Burma, India, and oh, what's that place in the news now called... lemme think... Israel and Palestine? ;)

That's right... haven't done much to clear up that mess.... ;)

Thank you for posting your opinion and not backing it up with any evidence on here.

If that is about the first post of the thread, I urge you to take it back, before you make more of an ass than you already did.

Thank you Spain for pussing out and leaving Iraq after Al-quaida attacked you. Thank you Spain for not having the nuts to stand up to terrorism.

Just that you don't go blahbing around the next time, the people was against the war before it started and Zapatero was sure to be elected and retire the troops from Irak long before the terrorist attack.

so you are saying if someoe is born rich is equal to someone born poor. No so mon ami. And in case you havent noticed the gap between classes isnt exactly shrinking. :mad:

Because the people who are rich work hard to make their children's lives better. They always have. They work hard, they invest in their ideas, they takes risks, they undergo stringent self-denial, all for a better tomorrow. Many know that they'll only get to enjoy the fruits of their efforts in their old age, but their children will be able to enjoy these same fruits, possibly for their entire lives.

And anyways, a poor child is perfectly capable of becoming educated and wealthy. Example A being Bill Clinton, one of the best Presidents of the last 50 years.

May I remind you of Burma, India, and oh, what's that place in the news now called... lemme think... Israel and Palestine? ;)

That's right... haven't done much to clear up that mess.... ;)


Im sorry but the mentioning of Israel in there confuses me. For I dont think the US started that, although did add fuel to the fire.

Was it the US who detonated bombs in Madrid's subway killing 200, did the bombing in Satkhira, Bangladesh , attacked pilgrims in Pahalgam, Kashmir and Doda region, Kashmir, India, bombed and killed 38 people in Larba, Algeria , set off 3 bombs and killed 15 people in General Santos, Philippines, killed almost 400 people (mostly children) in the school seige in Beslan, Russia after previously crashing 2 commercials flights and setting off a subway explosion killing hundreds more, who slaughtered Netherland's writer Van Gogh in the street because they didn't like his topic...this list goes on and on and on ...and all of this without factoring in the suicide bombings in Israel or the 9/11 attacks in the US (that attack alone killed people from over 60 nations). Who is REALLY killing people around the world? The US along with Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Kingdom of Tonga have stood up and taken action against the groups that are attacking and murdering innocent people all over the world. You seriously need to step back and take a good look at what is going on around the world before you start pointing fingers and condemning.
And...........what does ANY of this have to do with the War against Iraq?

Im sorry but the mentioning of Israel in there confuses me. For I dont think the US started that, although did add fuel to the fire.

This was in response to someone saying the UK never cleaned up any of its messes because it had not made any.

Because the people who are rich work hard to make their children's lives better. They always have. They work hard, they invest in their ideas, they takes risks, they undergo stringent self-denial, all for a better tomorrow. Many know that they'll only get to enjoy the fruits of their efforts in their old age, but their children will be able to enjoy these same fruits, possibly for their entire lives.

And anyways, a poor child is perfectly capable of becoming educated and wealthy. Example A being Bill Clinton, one of the best Presidents of the last 50 years.
No, that is not what I meant. For my family has a sufficent amount of money. what I meant is that with the tax cuts going to the rich, they are getting while the poor are getting poorer. along with the fact that if you a rich you baby almost everything is handed to you and are almost guranteed to do will; while if you are poor with his education plan, you only bcome a sub-middle class lackie. Granted there are many exceptions, but in many countries you arennt equall at birth and will never be. Sad but true