|
Post by Srrh on Mar 20, 2003 11:27:33 GMT -5
But you comfortably critisize under a blanket of freedom provided to you by those butchers. Baby Bush's war on a country on its knees will provide me with a blanket of freedom? You'll have to run this by me again... The only thing the military ever provided me with was...a coup!! So much for freedom.... furthermore, as someone who went trough the entire "consciencious objector" saga in his own country, I am not sure "confortable"is the right word. Have you ever been arrested at your own border because you were refusing to fufill your military obligations? I have !! I've put up with insults, holliganism and down right retarded people... If you want me to say that war is not a crime, you better sharpen that rethoric of yours,because I am pretty much sold on the idea. Wars are crimes against humanity. A good soldier is... a dead one. Viva la muerte !! Nao Passaram !!! Butchers, all of 'em. Srrh
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Mar 20, 2003 11:36:23 GMT -5
1)ah yes but in Plato's Republic the underlying question is "when should one obey the law?" 2)I feel the law (1441) says that we should do this 3)Also, Iraqi soldiers need to laydown and let us handle Saddam. They need to go home and see thier wives and kids grow. 4)Remember, the republic is based on a crooked government that kills Socrates for speaking out against the communitee. kind of like Saddam killing innocents and not following his agreements 1)Yes, precisely. 2 thousand years later, Nurmembeg will serve the same purpose. 2)1441 is about weapons of mass destruction (which might be gone, we dunno) not about regime change. 3)That is also true of American GIs...dying for Bush...what a fucked up idea... 4)Woooow. The "republic" that force Socrates to "get drunk to death" is not Plato's ideal Republic. "Plato's Republic" is not crooked for...it never existed!! Plato doesn't so much write about "what is" but "what should be..." I still think war is a crime. S...
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 20, 2003 11:36:47 GMT -5
update: either SCUDs, Chinease Sunfire, Or Al Samuuds were fired upon the USA. All are illegal Under UN Resolutions A small Iraqi plane, maybe Cesna or Drone crashed in Kuwait. A US Helicopter crashed with special forces. All are fine Still no real indication that Saddam is alive. Be nice if we gotem last night it would change the war completely. TC no offence mate but stop watching Fox News, everything the Iraqi's have used so far, "is within the allowed guidelines." The helicopter was a "Hard Landing” and before anything started. The only people in breach of the UN are "The coalition of the miniscule few" Srrh; As they said "what happened if they gave a war and nobody came" And yes it pisses me off that there is all this "hope the troops come home safely crap" There is a world of difference in being willing to defend your country and going 8000 miles to kill thousands of people when there is/was a viable alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Mar 20, 2003 11:47:09 GMT -5
1) "what happened if they gave a war and nobody came" 2) And yes it pisses me off that there is all this "hope the troops come home safely crap" 3) There is a world of difference in being willing to defend your country and going 8000 miles to kill thousands of people when there is/was a viable alternative. 1) Generals shooting at each others. That's what would happen. And I guarantee they'd never declare another war after that. "Me going to another war? Are you nuts? I could get killed!!" 2) Agreed. If the health and well being of soldiers is that important: DO NOT send them to war. Newsflash: It's dangerous!!! 3)No doubt. DB, I was listening to the rep. of Arab States at the UN last night...How much full of shit can one be? The guy was basically bitchin about the US, stating that it was a catastrophy, that arab states were against it blablabla...And then Michel Hussein asked the guy about the hypocrisy of the situation: "On the one hand gulf states such as soudi arabia or koweit give the US all the space and support they need, and on the other they condamn the movement as a US agression"...the guy went bezerk....but I feel she was right.... How do the average people in the middle east live with that dichotomy? S...
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 20, 2003 12:52:18 GMT -5
update: either SCUDs, Chinease Sunfire, Or Al Samuuds were fired upon the USA. All are illegal Under UN Resolutions TC, although I know what you are saying, that is almost funny! SCUDs being fired upon the USA? Damn, I didn't realize they had such a range!!! (I believe they were fired upon Kuwait) All are illegal under UN resolutions? Apart from the fact that I believe most of those are approved, I think UN resolutions just went out the window with the attack NOT supported by the UN. Let's get reak here, the US is attacking, rightly or wrongly, without the support of the UN. How can we then criticize Iraq for responding to that attack going outside of UN resolutions?
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 20, 2003 13:04:41 GMT -5
Srrh,
Even as far as Plato's Republic (particularly Book 4 I believe) you can find early references to the need for a military force. I assume you disagree with Plato?
See, to me there is always a need for a standing army for there is the need to establish security of one's land. In particular, I believe that conflict is an inherent part of the human condition, at least up to this point in history, because we have not been able to solve many of our differences in any other way. It is intriguing that after all these years of evolution, we have not been able to overcome this problem, but alas that is reality.
Now you say you hope they all die, and then you go on to say that if you are ready to kill another human being then you deserve the same faith. While there is some true to your statement, I have a different point of view. I believe that anyone who is willing to kill another person immediately gives up his so-called human rights for that person is not acting like a human. By that rationale, they can get killed and their death does not constitute an immoral act. See, while conflict is still a part of the human condition, it should be our goal to avoid war and death. Thus, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the one we seem to live by; and by corollary, avoiding war becomes a moral value. Obviously some people have achieved this value, but most people haven't, also verifying its nature of a moral value. Furthermore, I believe that any person who wears a military uniform has by default given up those human rights. This is a reality they accept when they start wearing that uniform, but here's where you have to look at the intent behind their actions.
If someone came and punched you in the nose, then your natural reaction will be to punch them back (well, at least mine would be). In such case you are acting in self-defense and most people would agree that this is a justifiable action. Also, if you knew someone was going to punch you, more than likely you would find a way to prevent them from striking you. This can be achieved passively (as in dodging the punch) or actively (as in striking first, striking hard). Or look at it in another way: what if you were in a situation where you knew someone was trying to kill you. Logic will tell you that you can use at most, the same amount of force that is being used against you to save yourself. So in a situation where it was either you or him, would you not perhaps kill that person? Everyone has their answer to this particular question. Obviously these are simplistic views but I think they illustrate the point.
Now, it can be argued that a nation-state is no more than a natural extension of the individual. In fact, this is seen throughout nature: ants will fight when they are attacked; bees are just as violent and vicious when they defend their hives. Soldiers are no different and that's why I believe they deserve much admiration: they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the common welfare of their states. In my biased, highly brainwashed opinion, life is the ultimate sacrifice for the ultimate responsability which is freedom. Thus, there exists a perfect balance between the freedom we enjoy and the life that has been sacrificed to get it.
Now as Da silva pointed out, soldiers are NOT responsible entirely for what's happening. See, even Plato pointed out that military force needs to be under civilian control. This is because military force is not to be used lightly. Instead it should be use only in the most extreme cases. And such power would be dangerous in the hands of the warriors, so we leave it up to the civilian officials to make those decisions. That's why I believe the finger should be pointed at the politicians and not necessarily at the soldiers who are carrying out their orders. Now you might into the whole "lawful order" argument, but I don't think that would apply in this case because I think most soldiers believe they are fighting for a just cause.
Let us not forget who gave us the gift of freedom. Maybe instead of saying "you deserve to die" we should be saying "thank you" every once in a while. I know I sleep better at night knowing that they are protecting my biased, highly opinionated ass. And because I have the honor of knowing quite a few of them, I am even more reassured that we are in good hands.
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Mar 20, 2003 13:18:03 GMT -5
All are illegal under UN resolutions? Apart from the fact that I believe most of those are approved, I think UN resolutions just went out the window with the attack NOT supported by the UN. Let's get reak here, the US is attacking, rightly or wrongly, without the support of the UN. How can we then criticize Iraq for responding to that attack going outside of UN resolutions? I've often wondered myself how we can tell a sovereign nation not to have certain weapons that we ourselves have... Also I don't blame Iraq for using what they have in defense of a superior army... Anyone who thinks the US would not use all its resources to defend itself in the face of almost certain anihilation is delusional... ...anyhow, with that aside... Topcontender is correct, Iraq was not supposed to even possess such weapons- and in fact Iraq had told the international community they had destroyed all such weapons. The fact that Iraq had 4 scuds shows they were concealing weapons from the inspectors! Incidentally, Iraq is denying they fired the Scuds... I imagine shortly we'll be hearing theories that the US launched the Scuds on themselves to justify the attack on Iraq... Possible- but unlikely!
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 20, 2003 13:41:38 GMT -5
Henrik- yeah i know, it is kind of silly to bitch about weapons we already have seen in the past like a Scud. The only thing that gets me is the Sunfires. how did they get these (if this is true?) Plus they are antiship missles, and yes before someone reports otherwise are not exaclty top of the line stuff.
Danny, MSNBC, Fox ,and CNN are reporting the same thing. They are typically quoting Reuters, and a Few other wires, and Al jezerra (sp).
now a few oil wells are on fire.
There is little resistance being met by the US. This means:
A. last night really hit something or someone and crippled the Iraqi Military.
B. Defectors are making it hard for Iraq to fight
C. It is a trap and as soon as ground forces get settled in Iraq, the Iraqi will play thier hand
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Mar 20, 2003 15:13:13 GMT -5
1)I believe that anyone who is willing to kill another person immediately gives up his so-called human rights for that person is not acting like a human. By that rationale, they can get killed and their death does not constitute an immoral act. 2)I believe that any person who wears a military uniform has by default given up those human rights. This is a reality they accept when they start wearing that uniform, but here's where you have to look at the intent behind their actions. 3)If someone came and punched you in the nose, then your natural reaction will be to punch them back (well, at least mine would be). In such case you are acting in self-defense and most people would agree that this is a justifiable action. 4)In fact, this is seen throughout nature: ants will fight when they are attacked; bees are just as violent and vicious when they defend their hives. 5)Now as Da silva pointed out, soldiers are NOT responsible entirely for what's happening. See, even Plato pointed out that military force needs to be under civilian control. 6)This is because military force is not to be used lightly. Instead it should be use only in the most extreme cases. 7)That's why I believe the finger should be pointed at the politicians 8)Now you might into the whole "lawful order" argument, but I don't think that would apply in this case because I think most soldiers believe they are fighting for a just cause. 9)Let us not forget who gave us the gift of freedom. Hey Pabs, Thanks for having taken the time. 1)YES. 2)Again, yes. (stop making my arguments for me.lol) Although I am not sure of their acceptance. 3)I can see that. In this case Iraq was punched in the nose. But I can see the argument of self-defence. 4)Again yes. But you have to admit it’s a pretty sad: our societies, reduced to being compared to ants and bees… 5)Oh, I but I do blame the civilians…Maybe you missed my opinion of Georges’ war. Lol 6)And this is not one of them. Regime changes is not an extreme case. It’s realpolitiks, geostrategy, imperialism, called it what you will: it is NOT an extreme case. 7)And I don’t ? ROFL 8)So did all the SS in 1942. And every French soldier under Napoleon, and every roman legionnaire under Cesar. Tell me when soldiers didn’t believe they were fighting a just cause? 9)de tocqueville? Rousseau? Anna Arendt ? As I stated previously, the only interference I ever got from soldiers was during a coup. I don’t think freedom is a military term. When I lived in Br. I use to play Soccer. We use to have to leave stadiums in different groups because the military police could (and would) open fire on any group larger then twelve. Thus The soccer team (including replacements) had to travel in smaller groups. That’s the army… The company’s nurse had her daughter kidnapped by a military death squad. One night (in 81) they rang her door bell, she was escorted in a military vehicle and…never heard of again…Today, 22 years later, the state still doesn’t acknowledge the event. It destroyed the woman’s life. That was also the army… Inversely, when Tancredo Neves was elected president: CARNIVAL FOR A WEEK. For me, the news are never as good as when I hear a suicide bomber blew up on his own device, dying, yet injuring no-one lese. Or when 300 Iranian guards of the revolution crashed with their plane in the desert. Like wise for the army… As Danny Boy reminded us: What would happen if they called a war a no one showed up? I’d like to see that before I die. I’d like to see our “great” leader face’s when they’d realise that we, peons, are not just ground beef. S…
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Mar 20, 2003 15:40:08 GMT -5
Danny, MSNBC, Fox ,and CNN are reporting the same thing. They are typically quoting Reuters, and a Few other wires, and Al jezerra (sp). Probably, but it is the way they report it... Last night Fox was replaced by FOXNews. Which means I had 17 channels broadcasting the empty sky over Iraq!! And they all reported the same thing. They all refered to the "invasion" of iraq (even abc and cbs) fox refered to the "liberation" of iraq. And when the bombs were dropped, fox mentionned they had been dropped on "the snake's head". Now these are not news: these are editorials!!! Ruppert "the anti-christ" Murdoch should be sent to the frontline... I ended up watching CBCnewsworld...the coverage was very decent. I wish I had Al Jazzera (not that I think it 's any less bias, I am just curious as to what they are saying)...but I don't speak Arabic anyways...As for the french (from france) news, they are annoying!! you can see they are just looking for the biggest US fuck up as possible so they can say "I told you so!!" I am not impressed. S....
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Mar 20, 2003 15:51:40 GMT -5
LOL... Fox News is histerical...
Funny thing is- I am a moderate leaning to the right- but even I find Fox News funny to watch-
Whereas most news channels lean to the left... I think its purely because, thats what most journalist-type people are- you don't go into journalism (usually) unless you are an artsy-fartsy liberal...
Now Fox News on the other hand is artificially leaning to the right- its amusing how much spin is on all their stories- they must have a team of spin doctors who sit down before they release a story and say... "OK how can we spin this story so that the right-wing will enjoy it?"...
I'm used to that though... I get a great deal of my news from AM-Radio... AM News/Talk Radio is FULL of spin...
LOL... personally, I would love to see a neutral news source- but I fear that will never happen... the bias of the journalist in question will always shine through!
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 20, 2003 21:12:15 GMT -5
heh i like Foxnews/Skynews i try to watch a few channels to get a wide view, but Fox seems to be faster with the info. The BBC always is good for typical coverage but ehy seem slow when it comes to up to the minute info. However, what is everyone watching? I get BBC Worldservice on a sat radio in my car CNBC Fox/Sky CNN MSNBC I am really interested in what the others have to say. Danny what news are you getting from the local stations? I bet you are getting a alot more coverage of aspects we wont hear about?
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 20, 2003 21:37:35 GMT -5
TC; I get Fox, CNN, BBC World, Sky, Al Jazeea and a plethora of European News Channels. As things get worse!! Al Jazeera will have the best coverage, because the other channels will have restrictions placed on them by their Governments, the same as the last war. The German channels will be showing uncensored coverage as well (ZDF, ARD, DW) just wish I could understand what they were saying.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Mar 20, 2003 21:52:21 GMT -5
I found (and find) that while CNN does report the happening of events as quickly as any network, their analysis of what really is happening (or has happened) is sorely lacking.
FI last night .. with the decapitation attempt .... CNN went on for hours ... with the same story ... 40-odd cruise missles launched in a decapitation attempt against Saddam & other top leaders. Also involved some F117's. In reality ... a better analysis was provided on Canada's CTV network, where a retired US General explained that in all likelyhood, few if any of those cruise missles were aimed at Saddam - rather they were taking out defensive positions near/in Baghdad (radar / AAA) so the F117's could fly in and drop the Bunker Busters.
IMHO, CNN isn't great unless you just awoke in the morning and want to watch the banner for 3 minutes to catch up on the past 12 hours. Otherwise, I'd take CTV, CBC, BBC, or ABC.
CFF
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 20, 2003 22:11:05 GMT -5
When it comes to certain things like violence American TV never shows anything. It gets me mad when i know things are being reported and i get stuck with censored crap.
Aside from that, is there anything on the InTL stations that are diffrent from the US or BBC
|
|