Irate over Iraq

[ben]

OK. I've finally had it. I want to spit in John Howard's face over his spinless fawning over Bush's bellicose stance on Iraq. I know this is a bad topic for any message board and could cause a lot of flames but **** it! I'm pissed off!!

It's Invasion Day (Australia Day) today and I am more ashamed than ever to be Australian.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

This war, if it comes, will not be fought in my name. I didn't vote for Howard and I sure as hell wish more Americans had got off their arses and voted for someone other than Bush. Before he was just a dickhead with little education and good connections. Now he's dangerous.
:angry: :angry: :angry:

Why isn't there an emoticon for utter helplessness and frustration?

b

[aru-ma]

Hey ben,

I for one agree with you with spitting on johnny H's face, always did since I came here but if you think of it he's not the only one to blame on this matters, there's the people who voted for him :) (dont look at me, I'm not a citizen) plus I dont think a well mannered pet would turn on its master.
As for invasion day its more like "yeah sure we did horrible stuff to you(natives)people but that was in the past, cheer up! oh btw we're not going to apoligize[sp?]"
As for Bush (and Howard) being an idiot isnt illegal so there you go.

well, there's my 5 cents, cant give you 2 since 1 cent coins isnt around anymore.

[KhawMengLee]

Talk about terrorism...what the hell is Bush's coalition doing?

They have already divided the spoils amongst themselves. I love it how they say they are not there to steal oil but to "manage" it for the Iraqi people...yeah Bull-fucking-shit!

How much more instability and shit does Bush wanna create? South Korea and Japan were just about to get on with peace/reunification talks with North Korea and Bush opens his big yap and declares them part of the Axis of evil. I dunno what his problem is about nuclear weapons...America has tons of that shit and as far as I know they were to only ones to drop it on people, so they have no right to tell us what to do...

sigh,
PEACE
MENG

[Critical_Bill]

bush is a monkey in a suit, and somone else is most likely pulling his strings... this whole "let's attack iraq" think came right out of left field, and somewhere someone probably told him
"you need to have a war to be re-elected for next term"
while you need to atleast keep tabs on a situation like iraq, it needs to be a UN issue, and NOT a one state police action!!!

as for howard...heheh...well, from the day i got to australia everyone keeps telling me how he's a dillweed, it astounds me that this man ever got into office heheh :)

[KhawMengLee]

he's smart...he played on the whole "refugee" issue. His office painted the refugees as being illegal immigrants. This is bull because refegees once they claim asylum are classified as political refugees.(They are definately not illegals)

There are tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in Australia and the majority are British and American tourist/backpackers who have overstayed their visas.

Howard also laid claims that the refugees tried to dump their children overboard to gain help from the Navy to bring them to Aust. Once again this was shown to be false.

sigh...he just played on the racial fear vote....smart move...

[Ares2907]

C'mon guys and girls, surely you've worked it out by now. It's war for entertainment and profit. How much will military suppliers such as Boeing and McDonnel Douglas (to name only two of hundreds) make in a war on iraq? Anyone making ordnance stands to make a killing. If I had a bunch of spare money to invest right now, I'd be waiting for delaration of war then buying a whole bunch of call options on companies such as these.
How much will CNN make by selling live to air coverage of the war on Iraq? How many people around the world will sit glued to their televisions in rapt fascination as the forces of good and righteousness march across enemy territory and into the evil capital Baghdad?
War for entertainment and profit. Australian soldiers are there for little johnny howard to secure his tarriff free exports to the states and doubtless other little gems that his brains trust has come up with to 'build' the nation. No doubt Tony Blair has a similar interest (oh and to resurrect the imperialist glory of mother England).
So stock up on tv snacks, keep the beer cold, cause once war is declared, you know in front of the tube will be the only place to be. Come on everyone, jump on the bandwagon and sign the petition in support of war for entertainment and profit.
</sarcasm></cynicism>

[John W]

Wow- my first non-kendo related post!

IMHO Saddam H. should have had a bullet when the Gulf War started, it's only since Sept 11 that the world has clicked at how deadly and dangerous small groups of evil people can become.

Yes, there are other motives at hand aside from toppling Saddam but don't forget this- Saddam H is one evil man. He has no problems using chemical weapons on his own people so what is going to stop him firing a few nukes into other countries if he had the opportunity to do so.

I have no doubt that a war will happen. The USA or any country for that matter does not just ship off 60,000 troops half way across the world without some sort of exchange. Yep! war sucks, no one likes it, but some thorns have to come out and Saddam is one of them.

[KhawMengLee]

Ah, but who put him there...don't forget, up until recently he was USA and Britain's favourite dictator. They loved him when they set him up to power because he helped them against the Iranians.

Lets not also forget that Osama was backed by the CIA against Russia.

Using chemical weapons? I remember a CNN report about how Iraqi cavilians were suffering radiation sickness from the depleted uranium shells used by Americans...funny how that report was never followed up upon.

My beef here is that the coalition will probably set up another dictator that will be their puppet...
sigh

[iwatekenshi]

I wish the only WMD was a shinai. Then the world would be a much better place. Enough already.

[KhawMengLee]

then the Kenshin with the biggest shinai wins!

[nodachi]

If someone has a board, then someone will be grumpy and come along with a board with a nail in it, and then someone will come along with a bigger board with a bigger nail...

Sorry for the Simpsons reference, but it is the ugly side of human nature.

And it doesn't help when I have heard from people studying political science that in some of the intro courses they talk about what does it mean to have political POWER, who deserves to hold it, why, and so forth. People need to stop dealing with who holds the power and focus more on resolving conflicts for MUTUAL benefit without resulting to force.

[BigG]

I'm with you nodachi ... I feel that if someone wants to be elected to a political office of power, that should want should immediately preclude them from being elected to it.

The phrase/buzzword that is applicable is 'asymetric threat'. in the 'olden days' a conflict/ war was largely assumed to be between 2 sides, both of which being clear of the underlying motives for the other. With terrorism, it isn't that simple, the driving doctrine is sometimes unknown or unclear. It seems to me that geroge w's war on terror (which is essentially confronting the asymetric threat of all terrorism, apart from the IRA) has become 'war on Iraq 3' to reduce things to the conceptually simple symetric threat of one enemy.

If that makes no sense .... sorry :(

G

[hamish]

At least the last Bush had the sense to realise he had no idea what to do in Iraq if he went all the way and killed Saddam, not so with red-neck Dubya. Is it just coincidence that he's a former oil man?

Hamish

[BigG]

makes you question the Bush family gene pool.

G

[stk]

regarding the Bush family: http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

[aru-ma]

You know what's even more amusing about this whole war on Iraq is?
The US(read:Bush) probably knows if not unsure that iraq has no WMD so they're deploying 120.000 troops to the middle east because they see Saddam Hussein as a threat. On the other hand you have North Korea who admited and HAS showed that they HAVE WMD.
Now the thing is why am I not seeing 120.000 US troops in Asia? yeah sure they got bases in Japan, South Korea, and Philipine oh and dont forget Australia too (not bases just poeple "willing" to be sent to die for someone elses cause and be proud of it :)) but they have these near and in the Mid east too, so why am I not seeing large numbers of US army batallions and US NAVY's Battle groups popping up in Japanese waters or any Asian waters for that matter. So am I to understand that live nuclear weapon in a hostile country is not considered a threat whille a man and a moustache is a threat?

In saying that I'm reminded of 2 things about war.
1. Only fight the fight you can win
2. you dont fight on 2 fronts (look at Germany WW1 and WW2)

So I've come to the conclusion that GWB is a chicken, a straight yellow-belly chicken.

[BigG]

Originally posted by aru-ma


In saying that I'm reminded of 2 things about war.
1. Only fight the fight you can win
2. you dont fight on 2 fronts (look at Germany WW1 and WW2)

So I've come to the conclusion that GWB is a chicken, a straight yellow-belly chicken.

Mr Bush seems to have taken heed of the advice in the art of war and chosen to ignore it :confused:

[Ostrak]

Well....I guess I might as well chime in with my two bits. First, no I don't agree with starting a war on Iraq at this stage but since you all seem to be agreeing I figure we need a devil's advocate...ta dah...here I am. I guess just to get the ball rolling down the devil advocate's lane I'll start with aru-ma's last post (no offense Aru-ma but you're the only post visible on my screen) and address why the U.S. would begin a war with Iraq rather than Korea right now. Yes, Korea has WMD. I don't think there is a dispute there. Does Iraq have WMD? Well that's why the UN weapons inspectors are poking around...to find out. Now the important thing (at least I think so) is to look and see who has attacked who. Well, I'm not a history buff so correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that Korea has fought anyone in a long time. Iraq, on the other hand invaded Kuwait just a decade ago. I think that's undisputed. The UN, not just the US, thought that this unwarranted agression should not go unchecked and took measures to remedy the situation; i.e. to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Since Iraq has been kicked out of Kuwait they have failed to comply with UN resolutions and have repeatedly fired on UN aircraft (admittedly mostly US aircraft but other aircraft as well) enforcing the no-fly zone. So, in short...Iraq has invaded another country, been kicked out and then after being kicked out of Kuwait fails to comply fully with UN resolutions and fires on UN aircraft. Korea has WMD...but they don't look like they want to use them while Iraq has repeatedly shown that they would use them (consider the Kurds).
As to GWB being a chicken...Aru-ma you cite two things about war..."only fight the fight you can win" and not to fight on two fronts. While I don't necessarily agree with the first principle (but that could be a post in itself) I think the second is sound advice to follow if the situation warrants. It seems to me that GWB is following your advice. Why would you call someone a chicken for following this advice?
Well...that should be enough to get the ball rolling.

[KhawMengLee]

Hmmnnn....and the coalition forces are? Liberating Iraq? More like liberating their oilfields to line their own pockets.

If you want to bring up the issue of invading other peoples territory and genocide, then the US should start bombing Israel because they have been commiting murder right there.

[BigG]

I know nothing about Australian politics but it seems to me that the 'Bruce' mentality has extended to the government and they want a slice of payback for the Bali bombing (one of my mates was in a bar over the road .... freaked me out worrying at the time before i get accused of being insensitive)

[Ostrak]

KhawMengLee...Regarding Iraq...No, I don't the coalition forces are liberating Iraq. Nor do I think they are liberating the oilfileds to line their own pockets (at least that's not the main purpose although it may motivate some... at the very least incidentally). The coalition forces may instead be viewed as merely enforcing UN resolutions. Regarding Israel... a distinction must be drawn. First, Iraq invaded another country (admittedly Israel did bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq in ...I think the 1980's memories a little hazy on that...I assume, however, that you are instead referring to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?). Israel may be viewed as more akin to a civil war than a war of aggression as Iraq invading Kuwait was and Israel is therefore responding internally rather than externally as Iraq did. This makes it more difficult for other nations to intervene against Israel. Furthermore, the Palestinians can be viewed as murdering the Israelis (suicide bombers abound). It seems to me that Israel and the Palestinians are murdering each other and its not just a one way street of Israel killing Palestinians. Israel and Palestine have both responded (albeit minimally in my opinion) to political pressure from other nations (on and off I know) and continue to do so (to some degree). I realize my previous sentence is a little wishy-washy but I do think it's completely honest.

[aru-ma]

2 things I really like is Kendo and talking about politics especially the ones leading to higher politics(war).
side note: can someone tell me why war is called higher politics if its lower in the moral degree? I don't get this.

to answer ostrak, just note that just because I'm a muslim it doesnt mean I agree with the idea of "the attack on Iraq is just another step in attacking Islam as a whole", I recon thats a whole lotta crap.

the first principle I put up as you know came from Tsun Tzu's Art of war, one of my favorite toilet reading book :D. I know some peopledont agree with that particular idea, its kinda like saying "the only way to win is not to play" in a more dignified way:). With the second part, in both WW Germany was considered as the agressor, highly arguable point but thats what you get in school text book anyways :D just clearing that part up. with calling bush a chicken, you're probably right he's not a chicken, my bad I shouldn't call him a chicken, he's a bully with a cop attitude, I guess we can agree on that.

You know what, I recon the US should take out Saddam Hussein on their own w/o any outside help, after all it their own mess with putting him in Iraq back in Iran contra. Forget the UN in this matter its an internal matter, the puppet went loose the owner should "fix" it. besides, the UN dont really hold any authority in matters like this, no really.

about the thing with Bali, I know its not a fair judgement but most "tourists" in Bali over-stay their visasand they get to stay over while if it was me who overstay my visa here they'll kick me out, like I said its not a fair judgement. I just like to say this however, Bali is NOT Australias PLAYGROUND!!! if its anyones playground its the Indonesians because its their province not an Australian state, I'd like to see Australias reaction if New Zealand say that Tasmania is their playground (not that this would happen, if it did I'd die laughing).

One thing though is the war do get the green light I'd like to see it "sengoku jidai"or medeival style:D that'd be something different for a change.

Sorry for the long posts with this topic, its just happen to be my field and my university starts soon:mad:and I've been trying to get my brain back in gear.

[aru-ma]

addenum
with regards to isreal and palestine. Isn't anyone sick and tired of this conflict? I know I am, here's a solution, split the area half and half and make Jerusalem sorta like the Vatican or a non-state (does not belong to either side) but with only visitors, make it a non residential area, maintenece will be done by a thrid party like an NGO eg. UN or a whole seperate country eg. Fiji (dont as me why) I think its better to just put down any historical, religious or other values regarding this matter just so the'll shut up

[Ostrak]

I think war is considered higher politics because it is considered an extension of politics, after diplomatic means have failed we get war (See Von Clausewitz, On War). So, it's really just a way of saying that matters have escalated (or so I think).

Yes, I guess we can agree with the concept of Bush as a bully with a cop attitude (long sigh).

As to having the US clean the matter up I would point out two things. First, I don't think Bush would have a problem with that and I think he's even said as such many times. The problem there is that Bush/the US is receiving opposition from other countries. Second, personally I do think the UN has authority in this situation (as much as the UN has in any situation). The conflict here exists between different nations. Iraq is violating some UN resolutions and potentially violating others (WMD). Some countries care and some don't (or to be more correct about it, some are using this reason/excuse to get what they want while others are ignoring it to get what they want...everyone furthering their own agenda as far as I can see).

[Atama]

I don't condone going to war, and I think bush is a grade A wanker and as for blair he's so laughable I don't even have to mention him. However I do think you are forgetting some key points in all this. Saddam admitted a few years back of producing tons of anfrax and othe biological weapons yet he doesn't have any record of there destruction (and its not like you can flush that shit down the toilet), Saddam runs a dictatorship and dictatorship are notorious for making records of everything, from video of torture session to every word spoken by a political figure in their country. But they don't have documents showing how they disposed of tons upon tons of deadly chemicals. Damn not even I'm that gullable. You just have to look at how Saddam has responded this last week to see his guilt, ask yourself would a guy who is not guilty really say that he would slaughter his enimies and send them back in bags.

Now on another note lets look at france, china and russia who are very much oppose to war. You might think that there is a humanitairian reason for their reluctance to follow bush, but the true reason is that late last year France, Russia and China alll signed a billion doller oil contract with Iraq, they are merely protecting their finances.

Most people are like, " if we go to war innocent people will be killed" this is true and I hate to see it happen, (an the pyscho US army bomb everything that moves) but what you forget is that Saddam has been killing millions of his own people for over a decade. Also goverments don't want the influx of refugees that will surely come when war breaks out. And the UK is already full of asylum seeker most of whom are muslim and quite alot are potential terroists. 20 asylum seeker have been arrested under the terroist act in the UK in the last 2 weeks

So what do we do....should we sit by and allow Saddam to go about his buissiness and hope to God that he was telling the truth (coz we know what an upstanding honest person Saddam is) or do we go with the war monger bush, better the devil you know........

I know one thing life would not be sweet under Saddams rule.

[Confound]

I will only say this: The peace you enjoy is built on corpses in a country not so distant from your own. The profits of war allow you to live in a reasonably secure, peaceful society. It's a sick and unhappy reality, but it's true.

How much money is spent on maintaining standing armies, creating mass weapons of destruction, building regular weapons and vehicles for said armies? How many people's lives revolve around the industry of death? Soldiers, manufacturers of airplanes, engineers, makers of screws and bolts and aluminum plates.

I understand that people get upset about war, and about its consequences for civilians. However, it is important to remember that none of us are innocents. Your hands are just as dirty as anyone else's.

c

[nodachi]

Another thing that is on my mind is whether this little rompt around the world against "evil" is going to stop, or does the States need to get a new president before it ends? And will they be able to stop once that happens or will retaliation from other "evil" countries make it impossible to stop?

This point makes me nervous.

And just about a little pet peeve of mine, I wish Bush would just speak like an adult. He may have his own little agenda he is walking through, but he can at least not sound like a video game while he is at it. "Beware evil doers! The mighty hand of justice is coming down on you and by the way I talk it will come in the form of someone who looks like Captain America!"

I don't mean to judge someone based solely on their style of rhetoric, but Bush really needs a new speech writer.

[Confound]

For many people, Nodachi, the world does exist in black and white. Some people abhor grey, and they spend incredibly amounts of their energy trying to eliminate it from their daily lives. I would guess that Mr. Bush is one such person. It can be a pedantic way to look at the world, but it has some advantages, at least a black and white person never has to ask what is wrong and what is right in the world.

As for the perpetuation of evil, let us return to the wonderful world of the Middle Ages and consider the Manaceans. They were a heretical Christian group who drew on influences from Zoroastrian Persian religion to declare that the human soul consists of good and evil, equally distributed. Though their idea about burping out good, and releasing gasses of evil from the bowels may be ridiculous to the modern mind, they did have a good point about evil and good. (O, and that idea about the souls of the blessed being ferried to the moon in a giant ship piloted by Archangel Gabriel isn't so likely either.)

There will always be more evil. Man creates enemies to buttress his own mind (or soul) against the things he fears most about himself. As long as there is fear, we will manufacture enemies. It's part of the 'grand' human experience.

c

[John W]

Here is a quote from Anon.

" You suffer your people to be ill- educated. Thier manners corrupted from youth and then punish them for crimes to which thier first education ill-disposed them of. What else is to be concluded, that you first make thieves then punish them."

In Iraq the youth must be brought up hating the west. Generations upon generations of people holding one big grudge.

I think education of youth is very important- the smarter people become the less likley they are to raise a gun when war is on the horizon.

[KhawMengLee]

Smarter people direct the people with the guns.

You got to remember it takes a lot more than just your upbringing to hate someone enough to kill them. If you wanna see the future suicide bombers or grudge holders just go to Afghanistan. Over 3000 civilians were killed in "collateral damage". No apologies, no real compensation(not that anything can compensate losing one's family), not even a human acknowledgement of fault.

Its not called civilian casualties its called collateral damage...and you wonder why they have a grudge...keep it in mind that this situation has happened in Iraq too.

[Confound]

. . . and in Vietnam, Serbia, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, The Congo, Rwanda. . . Go back far enough and you'll find it in every country. There is no country that is not stained with human blood.

As for compensation, it's a lousy concept.

c

[Critical_Bill]

in human history, there is no more then 5 days where there was no war ;)
peace on earth will probably never happen as long as we have no external enemy, sadly the only thing strong enough to unite human factions is a common eneny :/

[KhawMengLee]

Aliens...yup, I can see it now(just like in the Simpsons). Aliens land, "we bring you love" they say. "Kill them!!!" we scream.

[ShÖgun]

here some facts about the up coming war

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?
A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?
A: 50%

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?
A: Saudi Arabia

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
A: Iraq

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year world-wide?
A: $900+ billion

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A: 50%

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in
the world, according the the UN?
A: 10% (That's about $40 billion, the
amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?
A: 86 million

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?
A: Since the early 1980's.

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?
A: No. The materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britan and private corporations.

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?
A: No

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?
A:0

14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?
A:17 million.

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?
A: No

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?
A: 35,000

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ?
A: 0

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?
A: 6,000

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?
A: 40 tons

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? A: 700%

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?
A: 80%

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defense?
A: No

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?
A: No

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2003?
A: 10,000

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?
A: Over 50%

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?
A: 11 years

27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
A: No

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
A: 20 million

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?
A: 12 years

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 38

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?
A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?
A: 1.5 million

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997?
A:750,000

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?
A:No

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?
A:300

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?
A: 5

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?
A: Yes

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history."
A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have
discovered and dismantled?
A: 90%

40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in?
A: Yes

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+

43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?
A: $5 billion

44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8

45. Q:How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?
A: 0

46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?
A: over 10,000

47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: the US

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400

49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapons inspections?
A: No

50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by
Israeli settlements?
A: 42%

51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes

[KhawMengLee]

Shogun, where did you get these facts? There are a few ppl on e-budo who should see this instead of spewing their propaganda pro-war crap.

[Raígma]

I know Kendokas are supposed to fight. But still you should fight for peace. And this war is not going to bring more peace you know.

[Ares2907]

Someone asked Einstein what the next great war would be fought with. He said 'I have no idea, but the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones'.

I suppose if everyone bombs each other back to the stone age that would bring peace of a sort.

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by ShÖgun
here some facts about the up coming war

Very intersting and one sided. Do you have any simlar stats on the human rights and other abuses in Iraq? Just for balance of course.

JS

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
Smarter people direct the people with the guns.

You got to remember it takes a lot more than just your upbringing to hate someone enough to kill them. If you wanna see the future suicide bombers or grudge holders just go to Afghanistan. Over 3000 civilians were killed in "collateral damage". No apologies, no real compensation(not that anything can compensate losing one's family), not even a human acknowledgement of fault.

Its not called civilian casualties its called collateral damage...and you wonder why they have a grudge...keep it in mind that this situation has happened in Iraq too.

Another Malaysian talking about "collateral damage". Isn't that what your PM described the Bali bombing as?

JS

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by ben
OK. I've finally had it. I want to spit in John Howard's face over his spinless fawning over Bush's bellicose stance on Iraq.

What would you do to Saddam - kiss him?

JS

[J. Schitt]

You guys don't get it do you?

Firstly, Saddam is a monster.

Secondly, the Indonesian military back daily incursions over the Papua border into PNG.

The also back and arm militia in West Papua, the militia there are starting the ethnic cleansing that they tried in East Timor.

PNG is just north of Australia.

Indonesia is still annoyed at Australias stance on East Timor.

Indonesias population is almost 10 times that of Australia.

If the Indons decide to make a point, the only help that Aussies are likely to get is from the USA.

Therefore the Aussie governmenmt needs to be seen to be active in the alliance they have with the USA.

And anyway, George Bush at this stage is only trying to force Irag to do what the UN wants. Softly, softly does not work with Saddam.

JS

[ShÖgun]

Originally posted by J. Schitt


Very intersting and one sided. Do you have any simlar stats on the human rights and other abuses in Iraq? Just for balance of course.

JS

Well everyone should know that Saddam is not a very nice person, everyone has heard of all the testing he did on his ppl. I am not defending Saddam, i would like to see him go just as much as anyone but i would rather a peaceful way. But i don't know if that is possible

[kendomushi]

Amazing how even other arab nations are openly calling for Saddam to go now. They apparently want peace and stability and know that Saddam will make that impossible just be being in power and continuing going on as he is.
All the anit war people seem unable to answer the questions that bother me though.........

1. Where do you draw the line? Saddam has been playing games for 12 years now, when do you say enough is enough?

2. Violations exist and are slowly coming to light. What do we do about them given the UN resolutions? Take the French government's view that serious consequences amounts to the world discussing what bad children there are running Iraq?

3. What more serious consequences can we take beyond the sanctions already in place and short of going to war? Do you really think more severe sanctions would save civillian lives or cost them?

4. Given that Saddam has a history of using WMA, is it better to just sit back and wait to see if he does it again, then take our revenge, or is it better to remove him now?

5. Is not providing safe haven for criminals and murders aiding and abetting crimes? If so, what do you propose be done about terrorists being granted safe haven by Iraq?


I was in the US military. I still work on US military bases. Many of my friends will be sent to any new war in Iraq. Some, maybe even all, of them will be injured or killed. Still without answers to my questions, I have to take the US governments view and agree that removing Saddam is the only way to ensure he is no longer a threat.

I honestly believe that removing said threat will lead to greater peace and stability in the world. Sadly, though, with human nature being what it is, remove one threat and another soon arises some where else.

[KhawMengLee]

You don't wage war on people to get one man! Whatever happened to Osama?

If Saddam is the problem then just kill him, I mean if you can spot a "supposed" chem weapons truck with your sat.tech. I'm sure you can spot him.


Another Malaysian talking about "collateral damage". Isn't that what your PM described the Bali bombing as?

No, I don't think so. Where did you hear this? As I know it this term was coined by the American media/govt. We did a paper for this in one of my journalism courses and its a tactic to dehumanise the victims.

This issue is a huge mess. The American reasons for going to war on Iraq is a one sided issue. If the protection of human life was such a concern then I think Israel/Palestine should be a point of focus.

[Sinta]

Well, I'm not fond of Bush. I practically got a heart attack, when I heard he won the election! I mean, I knew no one who would've voted for him.

And yeah, USA and a good few governments back Saddam once before. They are responsible for more than one dictator. George Bush Senior admired the philippine dictator, Marcos (husband of Imelda Marcos, famous for her many shoes). Why? No idea! But like any other dictator Marcos was eeeeeeeeeeeebil. Ilived through that rebellion in Manila as they were trying to pull Marcos out of power. The house at the corner of ours was shelled badly. I was just 4, but I remember running away with my parents and little brother to the safer area of town and hiding out with relatives. My dad went back to help his swiss friends sneak out of the hotel in makati which was being taken over by the military (i think it was). At age 4 my dad was the bestest hero to look up to ^_^ (*gets sentimental*) Anyways back to the topic.

Why am I saying this? Because Saddam is one evil man, as was Marcos. I believe his people go through worse, than the pinoys during marcos regime. A lot worse. There is no doubt that he has to be removed, forced if needed be.

The sad part is, it's George Bush Junior who's going to do the pushing.. and i doubt he'd rather do the forcing right now. Any problem should be solved without bloodshed. Also the hidden agendas of the government are a factor. Saddam has to be pushed out of power, that's a fact. His people are suffering.

But is it the Iraqi people that Bush's government cares about... or oil?

The mentality of dozen lives for a dime is not pretty -_-

[Kendoka]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee

No, I don't think so. Where did you hear this? As I know it this term was coined by the American media/govt. We did a paper for this in one of my journalism courses and its a tactic to dehumanise the victims.


His comment about collateral damage was made in a speech at the non aligned country forum held in Malaysia last week. Parts of the speech were broadcast widely in Australia on TV.

[aru-ma]

Yup, Mahatir Muhammad (sp?) did say that, not quite surprised though, but I think it was put in a proper context since they did say were're in a war against terror and any civilian casualty in a war on either side is counted as colateral damage. I'm not taking sides in this issue though just putting things into perspective.

[KhawMengLee]

Oh, NAM(non aligned movement)...heh, I was trying to spot Mugabe...he was at KLCC(petronas twin towers).

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
Oh, NAM(non aligned movement)...heh, I was trying to spot Mugabe...he was at KLCC(petronas twin towers).

Nice types of visitor you let into in your country.

[KhawMengLee]

Not a big fan of him myself but it is the NAM conference and he is the head of state.

Hey, the US helped Mr Marcos escape justice...he was their cozy guest for decades.

Then there is Dr Mengele in Argentina,etc. etc.

[J. Schitt]

... and terrorists hiding in Malaysia.

[KhawMengLee]

Heh, don't believe everything the propagandists tell you. Our government has had quite a lot of experience dealing with terrorists. In fact the US was complaining at one point of our use of the "draconian" ISA(internal security act) ruling to detain without trial for their suspected terrorist links. Ironically, that it has been adopted by them now.

To say that terrorist hide in Malaysia is fair, they were hiding in Singapore, Indonesia, Philipines, thailand, Briton, Europe, America, etc...just because they trained to fly the planes in Sept 11 in the USA doesn't make the USA a terrorist training state/haven now does it?

Have you been to Malaysia? Before you make out our country to be some stone age oppressed state, maybe you should get your facts straight eh? I'm a non-muslim living in a Muslim state and I have never been "oppressed" here.

[Sinta]

I'm with KhawMengLee at this. I've lived 12 years in the Philippines, 2 years in Indonesia and a half Year and Malaysia. The places are not exactly swarming with radicals and stuff. These countries are beautiful. Propogandists kinda destroy their image. Hey I'm still alive aren't I? If I had to live in these places all over again, then I would.

And KhawMengLee has a point. There are terrorists hiding in almost every country. Like the terrorists learning to fly in USA. How comethat doesn't make the USA is not a breeding ground for terrorists training? I mean it's even a bigger country than these smaller asian countries and the population is even bigger. I know that the Arroyo's Philippine government, Megawati Indonesian government, and the Malaysian government condemn these terrorist attacks.

All countries have this problem. Don't go looking for scapegoat countries until you've gotten facts straight.

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
Have you been to Malaysia?

Yes. And found this piece - "KUALA LUMPUR (dpa) - Security officials have been placed on full alert in flushing out members of the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terror organisation operating in Malaysia, police said Monday"

And this "On October 23, 2002, the United States Government designated the Jemaah Islamyia (JI) organization a Foreign Terrorist Organization. JI is an extremist group linked to al-Qaida and other regional terrorist groups. The JI has cells operating throughout Southeast Asia. Since mid-2001, Malaysian authorities have arrested over 70 members of JI"

Thats a lot, 70, I think more than the USA have arrested, wonder why, maybe theres more terrorists in Malaysia.

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by Sinta
How comethat doesn't make the USA is not a breeding ground for terrorists training?

The recruitment and breeding is done in the middle east by attracting psychopathic types and offering them glory.

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
Heh, don't believe everything the propagandists tell you. Our government has had quite a lot of experience dealing with terrorists.

Yeah and found this too "Before the Afghanistan war, they were training in Afghanistan," a criminal investigator with the national police said. "Now they come back to Malaysia to make more members."

The officer, who asked not to be named, said two terrorist-training centres have been discovered in outlying areas around Kota Baru. He said the centres are operated by the Kumpulan Mujahedeen Malaysia (KMM), a group allegedly controlled by the Jemaah Islamiyah, the Indonesian-based network thought by many intelligence agencies to be connected to the Oct. 12 bombings in Bali.

[KhawMengLee]

Yes, the threat was discovered before sept 11. The group was gathering weapons and robbing banks for funds. They wanted to overthrow the government. Special Branch had two undercover operatives in those camps. One was caught and tortured to death but in the end the army surrounded the camps and they were all captured.

Please don't think our government supports terrorists, because we live in a moderate muslim state not a fanatical one.


Thats a lot, 70, I think more than the USA have arrested, wonder why, maybe theres more terrorists in Malaysia.

Hmmnn, take it like this. Now Boston has had a lot of people of Irish decent who have supported the IRA one way or another. If you were to make arrests on all people linked to the IRA in the US I think you would come up with waaay more than 70.

Take the members of Aum(Tokyo sarin gas attacks) in Japan. They look japanese, have japanese names, in fact, hey! they are japanese! So how do you find them if they don't make it known that they are AUM members? It like a poisoned apple hiding in a barrel of apples.

So with Malaysia etc. its not that we habour them, but its a little hard to know what someone is just by looking at the exterior. An asian person can move quite freely through asia even if he is a terrorist because he/she does not stick out. Just as a member of the IRA, KKK etc could move about freely in the US.

[Ostrak]

Here I am throwing my in my two cents again....I have to agree with Meng on this one. Just because there are terrorists in Malaysia doesn't mean the Malaysian government, or the Malaysian people support terrorism. There are terrorists in the United States (officials have recently made some large arrests just to point to a few) and this does not mean that the U.S. supports terrorism.

J. Schitt...please keep in mind that the U.S. (and I'm willing to bet nearly every country) has its own fair share of terrorists hidden in the country and not all of these terrorists are from other countries (Consider the Oklahoma bombing). Domestic terrorists exist as well.

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by Ostrak
(Consider the Oklahoma bombing). Domestic terrorists exist as well.

That was mass murder, not terrorism inspired by some ideal.

[kendomushi]

The Oklahoma bombing was indeed an act of terror. The perpetrators believed in and sought to bring about the fall of the current US political system. Granted their beliefs were base and self serving, but what they did was designed to create chaos, anarchy, shock, dismay and yes, terror..... They knew full well their attack would not overthrow the government on any level. They simply wanted to make people fear what they were willing to do for their beliefs or goals.
Sounds like terrorism to me.

[William Honda]

tesing

[Ares2907]

Wasn't one inappropriate test enough? Idiot.
*plonk*

[William Honda]

Ben,

I take offence at your comments. We do get up off our asses. We voted for and elected President Bush. Like it or not.

We got up off our asses to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII. We assist earthquake victims all over the world. Our doctors donate time and materials to help the unfortunate. We have many non-profit organizations that contirbute time, money and manpower.

You once wrote:

Get over it please
Get over it right now
Get over it - Get

Why do you not follow your own admonition? Unfortunately your government is not a major player. As such it has allowed the US, UK, Russia etc to control your fate.

Just because you do not agree with Pesident Bush allows you to call him a dickhead? It allows you to insult Americans by saying we should get up off our asses? This war will not be fought in your name? Who are you?

Your frustrations are no excuse to insult Americans.

Sincerely,

William

[William Honda]

Ares

Go plonk yourself

William

[KhawMengLee]

We have many non-profit organizations that contirbute time, money and manpower.

yup, vote for the UN resolution or we cut the aid to your country...yeh, real charity there...


We got up off our asses to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII.

Yes, all out of good will...the communist factor had noting to do with it, eh?


Just because you do not agree with Pesident Bush allows you to call him a dickhead?

No, the fact that he is a dickhead allows us to call him a dickhead.

[William Honda]

What do private non-profit organizations have to do with UN resolutions?



Good will to rebuild Germany and Japan? No.

I did not say it was good will. I said we got up off our asses and did it. Most everything our nations do are politically motivated. So I will agree with your insinuation that it was done out of not sheer benevolence.

When you stand up and be counted there are a whole lot of people that will attempt to drag you down. Given enough time we will probably do that ourselves (again, without your help).

History proves that no country will “own” the leadership spot forever. Maybe your country will carry the big stick some day. Then we can criticize without any equity.



Fact that he is a Dickhead? I must disagree, I’m certain it looks like yours. Name-calling is a sign of ignorance. So I was told (literally).

Sincerely

William

[Kuri]

Originally posted by William Honda
Ares
Go plonk yourself
William

Plonk = added to kill file
I'm sure that many more will be headed in your direction.

*Plonk*

[Inouye02]

hey Mr Honda, it's just lil kids making noise again , just trying to increase their post counts..lol

[ben]

Originally posted by William Honda
Ben,

I take offence at your comments. We do get up off our asses. We voted for and elected President Bush. Like it or not.

I apologise if you have taken my comments to heart as a personal affront. They were not meant as such, but were a (pardon my French) *cri de coeur*. That is, a cry of helpless rage and frustration, not a logically or well-thought out rational arguement. Did you vote for Bush yourself? If so you were one of only 20-25% of the entire electorate in the US who did. Not what I call a representative democracy but then I suppose no system is perfect, nor immune from tampering and legalistic interference.


We got up off our asses to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII. We assist earthquake victims all over the world. Our doctors donate time and materials to help the unfortunate. We have many non-profit organizations that contirbute time, money and manpower.

Meng has done a better job of rebutting these assertations that I ever could.


You once wrote:

Get over it please
Get over it right now
Get over it - Get

Why do you not follow your own admonition? Unfortunately your government is not a major player. As such it has allowed the US, UK, Russia etc to control your fate.

Fair comment. Perhaps not very politically incisive, but certainly fair.

Just because you do not agree with Pesident Bush allows you to call him a dickhead? It allows you to insult Americans by saying we should get up off our asses? This war will not be fought in your name? Who are you?

I think a huge number of Amercians would agree with my evaluation of the shape of the President's head. Why not visit www.move-on.org for an idea of just how many. Also, please refer to my original post and note that I was most derogatory of our own prime (sic) minister John Howard, therefore I was expressing a rage that was and is global in scope, not parochial. And it was not me but Michael Moore (a US citizen) who said "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

As for whom am I? I am a human being, a voting citizen. I am a person of conscience. I am a unique and indispensible part of a wonderous whole. And yet I am also small, insignificant and powerless. My opinion has no effect. And yet it is the only opinion that matters. Even though each of us has no political power, if enough people say "not in my name", I still, at this late stage, believe we can make a difference.


Your frustrations are no excuse to insult Americans.

Indeed, and once again I apologise for any offence I may have caused with my original post.

Sincerely,

William

BTW there's still no emoticon for powerlessness and frustration.


b

[ben]

Oops! That should be http://www.moveon.org/emergency/
also try www.globalvigil.org
and apologies for not being very good at the quote thing.

b

[Ares2907]

You know, I once had a reasonably high opinion of U.S.A'icans. The majority of the ones I know are intelligent and free thinking individuals with arguably some modicum of good sense. However recently I am coming to realise that they are the exception rather than the rule. USA'ican kendoka it seems are similarly affected.

Here's an example of the overly high opinion in which it appears so many of these people hold themselves in...

--
Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Associated Press

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - An American woman in Gaza to protest against Israeli operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, witnesses and hospital officials said.

Witnesses said Rachel Corrie, 23, from Olympia, Washington, was trying to stop the bulldozer from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp, witnesses said, when she was run over. She was taken to Najar hospital in Rafah, where she died, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator.

Greg Schnabel, 28, from Chicago, said the protesters were in the house of Dr. Samir Masri. "Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop," he said. "She waved for bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled 'stop, stop', and the bulldozer didn't stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her," he said.
--

Now tell me honestly, who else got an immediate flashback to Austin Powers on steam-roller vs. henchman?

[aru-ma]

USA'icans? ha ha I see you're trying not to upset the Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans and other Americans :D
For those who dont get it, Canadians and South Americans are Americans too in case you didn't notice :)

[aru-ma]

Mr. Honda I think I see your point, but, all in all you said you voted for Bush, good for you, at least you voted but dont forget the fact that you are a minority, if you've seen the statistics lately there are not that many people who voted in US presidential election, I'm probably wrong but there were less than 50% US citizens who voted last time.

I understand the right to vote also includes the right to not vote, if you dont like any of the choices given would you rather have no one running the country? or maybe they'd pick Ralph Nader :D. But I guess there's always the "I dont have to vote because there are others who will" mentality.

[nodachi]

aru-ma,

I would definitely disagree with you on the Canadians, Brazilians, etc being "American". There may be North and South America, but I know quite a few Canadians who get hot and bothered when they are called American. They really get ticked off when people seem to forget that Canada is its own country instead of thinking of it as an extension of the States, which I think some people do.

[kendomushi]

Anyone from "the America's" can be generally classified as an American. However the term usually is used to specifically mean persons from the USA. For those who are not familiar with that convention I think calling persons from the USA USA'icans is a bit too cute, but makes the reference very specific.

[Tato]

In fact, the USA'icans have stolen the meaning of "America", to the point that even us, the guys who discovered the schmilblick (from an occidental point of view, of course), we call our language brothers "surarmericanos". Even if they came from Central or South America. It's frustrating.

And for the Canadians, well, we call them Canadienses.

Oups!! I just broke my decision about NOT to post in this thread.:(

Rei

[mingshi]

Now it does seems like the entire planet is going against the US-Americans. Should we call ourselves racist? :rolleyes:

Anti-war = Anti-Bush = Anti-American

[Paburo]

Originally posted by mingshi
Now it does seems like the entire planet is going against the US-Americans. Should we call ourselves racist? :rolleyes:

Anti-war = Anti-Bush = Anti-American

Pro-war = Pro-Bush = Pro-Kill people for oil


your choice.

[William Honda]

Ben,

Credits to you. Although we are of different minds at least there is some open mindedness.

It matters not whom I voted for. America is certainly not perfect, nor will it ever be. But it is my country and I love it.

By the way, I too am not in favor of war. However, but when one fights - one must fight to win - to the finish. I ranted when we did not finish the job in 1991. Had we finished we may not be having this discussion today. If and when we do go to war I will support it.

I understand better now where you were coming from (regarding not in your name comment). Point taken.

As far as name-calling I guess we can agree to disagree.

Sincerely,

William

[kendomushi]

48 hours and counting. Hopefully it will be quick, decisive, done right.
Then history will have to decide if the ends were justified by the means.

[Sinta]

Originally posted by kendomushi
48 hours and counting. Hopefully it will be quick, decisive, done right.
Then history will have to decide if the ends were justified by the means.

less now, but still counting down. I'm hoping it is quick and painless as possible. I doubt the worlds economy can handle a war that's been dragged out.

CNN > 'U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated his stance that, should military action occur in the region without the blessing of the world body, "its legitimacy would be questioned." '

Not a good sign -_-

[kendomushi]

All depends on the legal interpretation. The resolution calling for the original cessation of military action required Iraq to disarm. If they indeed have not, then the cease fire is void is it not?

In any event. Let's hope it ends with a minimum of innocents lost.

By the way, war is historically always good for an economy in the end. During action, the countries fighting have to increase manufacturing, farming, shipping, etc. And with the swelling of military ranks more jobs become open at home. After the war, the job market is good until military draw down starts, and the rebuilding of nations and replenishment of military supplies keeps the manufacturing etc in an upward swing for some time. In the short term at least, the war will be good for the economies of the US and its allies. But in the long term and on the global scale the picture is much more uncertain, especially if the war is not quickly and decisively won.

[Paburo]

Originally posted by kendomushi
In the short term at least, the war will be good for the economies of the US and its allies.
...
Screw the rest of the countries then?
Sounds like blatant imperialism to me.

[munenmuso]

Wow. Their giving Iraq 48 hours to comply or otherwise all hell break loose. Sounds like one of those Hollywood movies. Art immitating life or life immitating art. What's next raid Saddam via highly trained Navy Seals or with just one push of the button for the "BIG ONE"?

On a more personal note:"GET THAT SADDAM OUT OF IRAQ!!!!"
no matter what cause. The principles of war are only achieved after the smoke clears up and no theories on war are that effective if no one has to deliver it.

For PEACE's sake, give war a chance.

[kendomushi]

Not meant to be imperialism, just a historic fact. The downturn after forces are released from active duty almost always wipes out economic gains made during the conflict. I do not mean to propose that the economy is a motivator in the US/UK stance against Iraq.
And in fact, every country, every business, every organization, everyone in the world acts in what it/they/he/she deem to be their own best self interest, acts to achieve their goals, no matter how it will effect others in the end.

[John W]

Originally posted by kendomushi

And in fact, every country, every business, every organization, everyone in the world acts in what it/they/he/she deem to be their own best self interest, acts to achieve their goals, no matter how it will effect others in the end.


Which is why kendomushi, there will never be peace on this little rock called Earth.

Well I just hope that Saddam does not hit Turkey, Iran and Kuwait with any biological or chemical weapons. I do think though that he will try to destroy the oil fields. And I do think that there will be a high death toll in this war.:(

[kendomushi]

Unfortunately John W, I am inclined to agree with you.

[KhawMengLee]

sigh...diplomacy was working....why did GWB have to push for war?

[Paburo]

ditto

[ben]

War is great for an incumbent leader's popularity. Not the lead up but the actual crisis of it. People cease requiring anything of their leaders except decisiveness. Even a moral stance becomes unimportant. Anyone remember what a non-entity GWB was after the fiasco of his election? Sept 11 secured his position as a popular president. War will do the same, once it happens.

It also takes attention away from the crisis in corporate governance that the Enron, Worldcom and Arthur Anderson financial scandals made public (anyone remember those little speedbumps? They're the reason my superannuation fund lost money - MY money - for the first time ever). As kendomushi says, war is good for the economy. What better remedy for an impending lack of faith in market forces (i.e. recession) and a bastard (as in illegitimate) president than war? What other remedy would a Texan think more appropriate? This is not about terrorism, or regime change, or liberating an oppressed people. It's war as financial management.


b

[kendomushi]

Diplomacy was not working as far as I could see. Over the past 12 years Saddam has given just enough to make public opinion think he is cooperating, then things change, then when the pressure is on he gives in a little, then steps back again. The same pattern over and over.
The result, no proof of disposal, not accounting for weapons the UN says Iraq possessed. Would diplomacy work in the end? Was it beginningn to work? I don't know, but based on the past 12 years I do not believe it would have.
I have many friends who will be fighting, maybe dying, in this war. Still, I agree with the US/UK, diplomacy is done, other measures must be taken.
How sad it is that the only action left is war.

That beingn said, a successful war will almost guarantee Bush a second term in office, no matter what else happens between now and election time.............

[burger boy]

Kendomushi,
You are right, diplomacy wasn't working and would never work with an individual like Saddam. Still, I would have preferred that the US was going in with the approval of the UN. The US is really coming across as a big bully in all of this.

And I wouldn't be so sure about Dubya's second term. His father led the country to success in the first war, but his mishandling of the economy led to his defeat.

burger boy

[kendomushi]

That's true Burger Boy, but in the first war, the general impression of the US populace was also that we didn't finish the job. That tended to negate much of the victory factor I think and allow the negatives in the economy to be played more effectively. Its also unlikely this George will have to face someone as charismatic as Clinton (though I never thought he was more than a skirt/ambulance chaser, but that's just me). And with campaign season to be in full swing in less than a year, and all the business a friendly Iraqi government will give to US companies, and the continuing war on terror keeping reservists out of the home job market..... George will have much on his side.
However it is very rare that anything in politics is a guaranteed good thing. Though based on the competitiion I see coming up on the other side, I've already decided to vote for Bush again.

[burger boy]

Kendomushi,
You present very good points.

And true, the crop of up and coming contenders for the Democratic nomination leaves a lot to be desired...

burger boy

[aru-ma]

As the countdown to war draws near I'm just wondering about one thing, how bad will air travel be affected? forgive me for being ignorant I'm just worried about my next issue of monthly nippon kendo, that and the WKC.

[nodachi]

Anyone got any tips on how to take advantage of this for cheap airfare to visit home? Will all rates be reduced to try and intice people to fly, or are there other tricks that require talking to the right people or requesting certain options? Haven't been home in quite some time.

[Sinta]

Originally posted by nodachi
Anyone got any tips on how to take advantage of this for cheap airfare to visit home? Will all rates be reduced to try and intice people to fly, or are there other tricks that require talking to the right people or requesting certain options? Haven't been home in quite some time.

I simply think all rates will be reduced extremely. My forecast will be that some airlines will file themselves bankrupt soon *remembers Swissair and cries* I recommend going straight to the airline to get cheap airfares. If you can, book a flight spontaneously. Last minute bookings tend to be really cheap because they just want to fill up the plane. I heard there are some travel agencys that can get you a better price than what the airline can give you, but I have no experience at this....because I don't like travel agencies -_- (bad experience) *shudder*

[Goyaman]

------------------------------------------
What other remedy would a Texan think more appropriate?
------------------------------------------

Well Ben, actually lots of them. Careful here about our characterizations of things Texan. I'll agree that the popular image lends itself to stereotypes, but there are indeed plenty of thoughful people living here who are in full agreement that Bush is a uber-wanker, and I'm one of them. The threat of impending war has effectively choked off much of the US economy over the past few months and I don't see a lot of significant economic benefit arising from it; of course there are many events to be played out in the days ahead that will confirm the validity of that.
This is the worst policy option that Bush could have pursued, and and the only explanation is that Bush has a personal vendetta to see Hussein ousted. Weapons inspections, though preceeding slowly, were at least in progress and there was a mechanism in place through the existing UN resolution, which, coupled with the multi-lateral scrutiny of the UN assured that Hussein's regime was effectively contained. In other words, the basic objective had been achieved already. If Iraq had produced any real threat with WMD swift multi-lateral action would have followed--legitimately.
Instead, Bush has followed an arrogant course of action for regime change at all cost that has alienated our allies, and is IMO not at all consistent with the higher ideals that U.S. policy should promote in resolving the situation. It's very disappointing to me, especially knowing that any loss of life that occurs in the next days will have been unnecessary.

[kendomushi]

Goyaman, your reasoning is valid but for the threat of WMD. There is no such thing as a threat from Saddam's WMD that would have prompted action from the UN Only USE of those weapons, with Saddam announcing to the world that he did it would prompt the UN to take any action, and even then unless the permanent members of the UNSC were attacked that action would amount to nothing but another resolution telling Saddam that he is a bad man.
To date, telling him how bad he is has produced nothing. And weapons inspections were producing NO PROOF of disarmament. And in fact, inspectors are not supposed to be searching for WMD. Their mission and UN resolutions to which Iraq agreed to comply with require Iraq to provide proof of disarmament. Iraq has failed to live up to that obligation for 12 years. Given these facts, what course would you propose that could guarantee immediate, verifiable disarmament and guarantee US safety?
While this war will not likely lead to world peace, it will demonstrate to the world that we stand by our convictions as a nation and will act to protect ourselves from persons and governments who possess and seem willing, and in the Saddam's case proven able, to use WMD. Is protecting your right to disagree openly with the policies of your leader a bad thing? Or as former president Clinton has recently suggested, should the US prepare for a time when we are not a super power, when other nations are stronger than us - in other words, be the first nation to surrender its soverign rule to the UN?

[Goyaman]

Kendomushi, here is where our interpretations of events must enter. The proposition of no such thing as a threat from Saddam's WMD that would have prompted action from the UN is highly debatable. If the US could have produced any credible proof of WMD (or quantities of any other varieties) through intelligence gathering and reconnaisance, the security council would have listened. As it was, the case wasn't convincing and the concensus wasn't reached.

Had the case for an immediate threat been made, the US could then take a lead role in a coalition disarmament effort, however in the absence of this is appears instead as if we now sniff at the irrelevance of the UN since it didn't rubber stamp approval of the preemptive strike that you argue for.
Yes, 12 years of tough-talking to Iraq didn't produce any change of regime and the earlier experience with weapons inspections were also frustrating; however, looking at this from the other angle it also didn't produce any evidence that they *were* engaging in a rearmament program of any scale either. The preception of a threat is largely based on conjecture and in the wake of the last Gulf war, Iraq hasn't made any further direct threats to its neighbors or the US. No, there is no way to guarantee the safety of the US, but there is *never* any way to gurantee security in any event.

Now, don't get me wrong here. This is most certainly NOT a defense of Saddam, who will deserve what he gets, but adopting a policy of a preemptive first strike as the Bush administration has done is a very serious precedent for the US and should be a response to a valid clear and present threat. It is not necessary to surrender our sovereignty to the UN to do this, but rather it is more than desirable to seek concensus with other nations in a manner that also respects their sovereignty as well. If we are to be a superpower, let it be not on the basis of the use of force, but on leadership in the international community that doesn't discount all options.

Thanks for your thoughful and succinct presentation of the preemptionist point of view.
Yes...it *is* a good thing to be able to freely dissent, and when conscience warrants, I submit that it's the essence of true patriotism.

Well, the shooting has started. May the conflict be short and the losses minimal...

[KhawMengLee]

It's started yes but its not legal by any means. Have a look here:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html


And as for all that crap about liberating people...well this excerpt from The Australian sums it up:



On March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's forces launched a chemical attack on the Kurdish minority in their northern homeland, killing 5000 men, women and children in Halabja. The attack, prompted by local support for Iranian troops in the dying days of the brutal 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, lasted five hours as wave after wave of jets screeched in from the west and dropped a cocktail of poisons – including mustard gas and VX nerve agent – on terrified civilians.At the time, Iraq was plied with weapons from countries including the US, Britain, France and Germany. After the attack was over, Washington continued to support Hussein against Iran's clerical rulers. But the US has recently cited the chemical bombardment of Halabja as evidence of Baghdad's cruelty. Many here can barely conceal their frustration as they recall a gassing the international community chose to ignore.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...55E2703,00.html

Bottom line is that this war is not about right or wrong or morality, its about self interests/agendas.

sigh...

[kendomushi]

Those legal arguments look at the Iraq situation as a new event. The US administration is looking it dating back to 1991. The cease fire conditions were never met and so the US feels free to void them. Right? Wrong? I don't know, but it is a valid argument, as are many arguments and points of view.
Only history will tell in the end, and of course we all knnow that the winners right the commonly accepted view of history.

[KhawMengLee]

yes...

qoute: "History will be kind to me...I intend to write it."Winston Churchill

[ben]

There's an interesting thesis on Bush's agenda for Iraq here,
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749824415.html
which I remembered after your comment Goyaman regarding Clinton's query about whether the US should cede its superpower status and defer to the UN. This would truly be a "giant leap for mankind" since whatever makes the US feel "safer" almost inevitably makes the rest of the world considerably less safe.

BTW my apologies to you Goyaman and any other thinking TExans out there. I'm afraid the generalisations come pretty easy at the moment. When you get bombarded with as much US culture as we do here, you sometimes make the mistake of thinking that informs you of what Americans are really like. Then Michael Moore comes along and you realise that there are US-icans out there that are just like much of the rest of the world, i.e. can put conscience above patriotism and have an ability to be self-reflexive.

b

[Karaken]

Ben, my support for Bush's policy has nothing to do with Patriotism. It's a practicality for US and the rest of the world especially middleeast. A few points of observation.

- The burden of proof should be on Saddam not anyone else.
- If Saddam had nothing to hide, he should have opened all records ( not 14,000 pages of garbage ) and let his people talk freely outside of Iraq to prove that, in fact, all WOMD are destroyed.
- He has proven to be capable of invading his neighbor state.
- He has proven to be capable of using Chem/Bio weapon.

Frankly, I think less Iraquis will die of the war than ones already killed by Saddam. Especially the war can be very surgical with all these high tech weapons.

I was thinking last night ( before the bombing ), US should surgically bomb Bagdad and use Electronic Jamming missile to disable their communication and decalre the war is over.
Yes, there'll be some Republican Guards left to fight but without communication from Saddam ( dead or alive ), their spirit can't last that long and without communication, Saddam is of not much use.

Just this morning, US shot down (2) Scuds fired from Iraq ( debris proved that they are Scuds ). Iraq has already proven that they were hiding weapons banned and are willing to use it readily.

Hope the initial bomb got Saddam and the war is already over - we just don't know it yet..

Center - why is it so hard?

[m_french]

To all- Right or wrong the United States is at war with Iraq. I've spent the morning reading this thread and trying to make some sense of the anamosity (or maybee envy) felt by some of you toward this country. First off as an american with a choice in govenment I did not vote for GWB, nor am I pro-war; But indeed something needed to be done. And while I beleive that more support from the international community would have been nice, Do not addmonish this country for having the balls to rectify the situation. Will there be adverse consequences to our actions..... most definately. But to all of you who sight our alterior motives... WAKE-UP do you think that their are any goverments that exist that take action solely with moral conscience and not with some sort of tit-for-tat kind of national or personal gain in mind??? Don't be fools.
I greatly appriciate the open forum concept here, in fact our country was founded on the same concept but some of you need to rethink your history, to the fine gentleman who argues that Germany was not an agressor in world war II there are at least 6,000,000 jews who might want to argue that point if they could.

[sminki]

m_french

i realize that you didn't say that you're necessarily pro-war, but i just thought i'd point out the irony of your political views and your sign-in name of "m_french". haha.

any thoughts of changing it to "m_freedom"?

[Goyaman]

No worries Ben. I agree with the spirit of your posts and I just sought to point out that we're not all trigger-happy yahoos over here.
Truth be told, there's a lot of basis for commonality between Aussies and Texans given the parallels in culture, history, etc...

BTW, I've met Bush before; it was back in '97 when he was governor here. He's personable enough (at least he was then), but he's not so tall. You could probably score men on him easy. Since he likes preemptive strikes I'd have watch for tobikomi and debana, but as he also tends not to think through his actions you could probably pound him with shikake waza...

[kendomushi]

Well now we have proof that Iraq has been lying, not a lot of proof, but to suddenly find and launch SCUD missiles that Iraq claims they have not had for 10 years is rather suspicious.
Still, in spite of this will the UN do anything? No, they will sit and watch and wring their hands with worry, they will deplore the death, destruction, and violence. But they will do nothing to support either side and even less to bring an end to it all.
Can anyone say League of Nations?

[munenmuso]

Last night I saw some footages of the former bomb shelter in Iraq, now a museum, hit by a daisy cutter where a napalm exploded killing and melting more than 400 civilians most are women and children. The heat was so immense that the flesh of the poor victims who are against the walls were melted against it. Bush, his generals, an even Saddam himself called it "collateral damage" or accident to put it innocently, but for the rest of Iraqi's populace, it's simply massacre or genocide.

[aru-ma]

League of Nations? HAH!! The only difference between that and the UN is that the U.S backed the latter which is probably the only reason why they're around for longer.

Just for opinion though, I read one of those opinion columns in the papers just the other day one person was saying that they should just do away with the UNSC(security counsil) and let the general assembly make decision regarding security issues amongst other things. I guess in a way it makes the UN looks less like an exclusive gentlemen club without the UNSC.

[AlexM]

The missiles in question are now said to be of the al Samoud-type (technically legal within a certain range). No proof of violations yet I'm afraid.

Having the general assembly making the decisions was one of the League of Nations biggest problems... "dominant power" politics (the UNSC and the 5 veto wielding members) was institutionalised because of the failure of the League to rally dominant powers such as the US and USSR. This way they felt they were still in control (partially). I'm not sure I'd want the General Assembly making law (UNSC resolutions have force of international law.... interpreting and enforcing them is a different story of course).

[KhawMengLee]

Well, there ya go! Not scuds eh? But then again the media is controlled by the US government so who knows what BS they are feeding you.

I was watching the talks before the vote for support in Parliament(UK) and it was funny how CNN and Fox only televised(live) the parts where Blair and the conservatives spoke(which incidently was pro war) and then they had their announcer talk over the bit where the liberal democrats spoke against war.

As a journalism graduate I would say this was very poor framing of the story...I mean the agenda was soooo blatantly pro america war crap.

sigh..thank god the BBC played the whole thing.

[KhawMengLee]

Do not addmonish this country for having the balls to rectify the situation. Will there be adverse consequences to our actions..... most definately. But to all of you who sight our alterior motives... WAKE-UP do you think that their are any goverments that exist that take action solely with moral conscience and not with some sort of tit-for-tat kind of national or personal gain in mind??? Don't be fools.

If you really want to argue this point then the USA should be bombing Israel or in the least stopping its funding in aid to buy weapons. A propasal to deliver 10billion USD in aid to Israel has been sent to congress....yes....to supply them with more weapons and incourage incoursions...

Fix the problem in Israel/Palestine and the mid east will be in peace. If Bush is gonna be a tough guy do gooder then take a real challenge not kicking the weaker guy when he's down.

[KhawMengLee]

hmmnnn...bad phrasing and spelling:

Bush should take a hard line stand in Israel/Palestine and divide the territory fairly(not give the palestinians the 90% of their land back that has no water). Saddam is like the weak guy now, the defeated bad guy. Attacking him now is like kicking a puppy...

[kendomushi]

The Kuwaiti ambassador now says the missiles that hit Kuwait were SCUDS, possession of which is illegal. Of course legal, illegal Iraq doesn't and hasn't ever cared and legal or illegal it won't even cause the US/UK to stop long enough to blink.

The UN general assembly would be even more ineffectual in making hard decisions. Too many different points of view and each nation acting only in ways it views as being to their best personal interests. In that case the UN would indeed go the way of the League of Nations.

[KhawMengLee]

We have seen in the past that when a government owns/controls the media everything said should be taken with a pinch of salt...kuwait's ambassador said that? fine, but it still could be BS.

Its like believing the Israeli ambassador who says there was no massacre at Jenin and at the same time they wont let us interview the palestinians or let inspection teams in until they "clean" up.

sigh...

[kendomushi]

A grain of salt is indeed appropriate. But being an american, working on an american military base, my experience of the US media is that they are biased most of the time against the US government (if a conservative is in office at least) and their concern in all cases is attracting an audience, not reporting the truth.
I get my news from the BBC world service which presents a much more balanced set of coverage. And yes it was the Kuwaiti ambassador in a BBC interview who confirmed the illegality of the missiles. Granted, he has much to gain by saying that, but I have not heard credible reports debating him.
Speaking of Isreal, anyone know what happened to the promised roadmap to peace for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict Washington promised would be out this week?

[KhawMengLee]

here we go:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/275256.html

they fired FROGs(haha...no true thats the name) not SCUDS.

[AlexM]

Meng, if you want a good speech find the one Robin Cook gave to parliament. He sounds like Alec Guiness. And don't spit on CNN too much, they reported that the missile was an al Samoud. However, I only trust the BBC as far as english language newsites go.

Bit of precision concerning the Israeli aid package (it was NOT confirmed by the State Depart. yet BTW): It promises 1 billion for military procurement (money) and 9 billion in "loan guarantees". "Loan gurantees" just mean that the US will guarantee a debt of up to 9 billion dollars that Israeli would make by borrowing money. All this gives is a slightly lower interest rate on the loan (something like 0.25% to 0.50% less interest). In this sense the 9 billion is really only a gift of 45 million at the most (I hope my math isn't too screwed up on that). That being said I think it's a hell of a reward for screwing up one's own economy (we should all get such gifts).

Whever you here "loan guarantess" that's what it means. See how 9 billion became 45 million in the blink of an eye.

[KhawMengLee]

Ta, mate...yeah, CNN isn't too bad...now FOX....I don't even bother watching unless I want to psyche myself off to do pissed off kendo...which is next to never:)

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by ben
War is great for an incumbent leader's popularity...

It also takes attention away from the crisis in corporate governance that the Enron, Worldcom and Arthur Anderson financial scandals made public (anyone remember those little speedbumps?
b

Any other conspiracy theories?

Did you make any comment in the last decade about human rights abuse in Iraq?

I'll bet not.

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee


If you really want to argue this point ...

You have a big mouth that espouses the standard bs crap on this subject.

As a journalist in a real job, you will need to learn some objectivity.

That may happen if you open your eyes and ears, but I doubt that will occur, somehow

I won't say that you are a stupid dickhead, because you won't believe me.

[KhawMengLee]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...55E2703,00.html


On March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's forces launched a chemical attack on the Kurdish minority in their northern homeland, killing 5000 men, women and children in Halabja. The attack, prompted by local support for Iranian troops in the dying days of the brutal 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, lasted five hours as wave after wave of jets screeched in from the west and dropped a cocktail of poisons – including mustard gas and VX nerve agent – on terrified civilians.

At the time, Iraq was plied with weapons from countries including the US, Britain, France and Germany. After the attack was over, Washington continued to support Hussein against Iran's clerical rulers. But the US has recently cited the chemical bombardment of Halabja as evidence of Baghdad's cruelty. Many here can barely conceal their frustration as they recall a gassing the international community chose to ignore.


Yeah, neither did the US...well, least not until it suited them.

[KhawMengLee]

As a journalist in a real job, you will need to learn some objectivity.

Yes...just like CNN or FOX eh? hmmnnn, lessee, they had that big British PArliament debate the other night(live), and which bits did CNN and Fox cut out? Oh, lets hear the cases supporting war and have a nice voiceover summary when the opposition talks...

Objectivity? Don't be an idiot! The only major international news agency which comes close to objectivity is the BBC and then again...

Journalism had its golden age between Vietnam and the early eigthies when the media had integerity.

Now its propaganda. There is no free press, in the western media it is not called censorship, its called editing.


That may happen if you open your eyes and ears, but I doubt that will occur, somehow.

I won't say that you are a stupid dickhead, because you won't believe me.

Typicall, can't argue with words or facts so he uses foul language...reflects on your parents and family upbringing:rolleyes:

[William Honda]

Meng,

May I remind you that you call people names too.

Sincerely,

William

[KhawMengLee]

I did?....:(

[KhawMengLee]

oh, yeah GWB jr.!

Yes, well, throwing a tantrum because the UN doesn't support you(because your proof is flawed or non-existant), then denouncing all your opposition and then bombing Iraq with no proof/support of one's claims is not a fair/nice/legal/moral thing to do.

Hence, he is a ____head!

[kendomushi]

According to the BBC, 10 SCUD type (illegal) missiles were launched at kuwait.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2871189.stm

[William Honda]

Meng,

There ya go making stuff up. You’ll make a fine journalist, it is apparent already.

The coffee is on, why don’t you have some?

Oh BTW, you claim the BBC is the only objective agency, but you quote a lot of Australian news. Are they the same? I’m asking because I don’t know.

Sincerely,

William

[KhawMengLee]

ah, well:rolleyes:


BBC...well, it is pretty objective.

Australia's ABC is the only government owned media group which is not controlled by the government...by that I mean they can't influence the media comp.

This is because the ABC is very much pro labour and the current government is liberal. The liberal government tried a while back to put a supporter in charge but that went down the toilet. Very strong labour support there.

There have beeen quite a few instances of very bad agenda setting with the ABC. One was to do with the domestic dispute a few years ago in Malaysia. The ABC reported huge riots and showed soldiers firing in crowds of demonstrators...what was really bad was that:

a) the clip was of indonesia, I know because of the uniform of the soldiers and the fact that the same clip was shown earlier on a report on riots in Indonesia.

b) There were no mass riots as the story made out. The news story quoted thousands as taking to the streets when it was actually less than a hundred. I had friends in the area that night and when i called them they assured me the capitol was not up in flames.

Media has lost its power and credibility in many ways...

See we have a nice civilized debate here :D and oh yes, I'll have some of the coffee thanks, 1 sugar and light cream please;)

[AlexM]

Kendomushi,

The article in question doesn't even use the word "SCUD" anywhere (it does say that missiles were shot down over Kuwait). Did you link the wrong article?

I think I'll wait a few more days (months? years?) before jumping on board any specific allegations made at this early stage of the game. The reports keep changing every 5 minutes (ex: Israel to get aid package >> State Depart. denies Israel is getting aid package).

[kendomushi]

OOPS, The BBC updated the page and the SCUDs became an issue lost its urgency when the forces started fighting for Umm Qasr. The BBC information on SUCD missiles in general does note that the International Institute of Strategic Studies thinks Iraq has about 12 SCUDs which matches closely with the 10 the BBC said were launched at Kuwait.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2462583.stm

Dhubai television must also be controlled by the US. There were Iraqi conscripts on it wh osurrendered to the coalition saying how happy they are to have food and want to see change in their country. And now the Iraqi 51st division along with his over 5000 troops surrendered to coalition forces.

I was disgusted by the scenes of so called anit war protestors in the US pulling a man from his minivan at an intersection, attacking and smashing the vehicle, then beating the driver. I guess violence is only evil if the US government or military are involved.

[Inouye02]

don't understand this , pro war people are peaceful..anti war people are violent .??? who knows ..these anti war people should be out there showing support for our troops...do they have the balls to be out there in combat ? hell no so just stop the whinning and show support ..

it was 8000 troops ..

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee


Yes...just like CNN or FOX eh? hmmnnn, lessee, they had that big British PArliament debate the other night(live), and which bits did CNN and Fox cut out? Oh, lets hear the cases supporting war and have a nice voiceover summary when the opposition talks...

Objectivity? Don't be an idiot!

Typicall, can't argue with words or facts so he uses foul language...reflects on your parents and family upbringing:rolleyes:

Ah the old argument - they (CNN and FOX) speak bull - so I will too.

Pull your head out the sand KML.

You are an overeducated dill, with no life exerience and a big mouth.

And you calling me an idiot reflects on your parents and family upbringing.

JS

[J. Schitt]

Originally posted by KhawMengLee
oh, yeah GWB jr.!

Yes, well, throwing a tantrum because the UN doesn't support you(because your proof is flawed or non-existant), then denouncing all your opposition and then bombing Iraq with no proof/support of one's claims is not a fair/nice/legal/moral thing to do.

Hence, he is a ____head!

Saw KML's little name under his silly avatar - Baboon King, so looked it up on Google.

"cool-reads.co.uk - Books for 10-15 year old readers by 10-15 year ...
... Robert Westall, The Kingdom by the Sea, Melvin Burgess, Kite, Anton Quintana, The Baboon King.

10-15 year old - says it all about KML's diatribe.

[ben]

*plonk*

[munenmuso]

*plonk* raised to the third power..

[KhawMengLee]

*plonk* ver 4.0

[misterkurukuru]

I will plonk a bomb on you! if you love iraq so much why dont you go live there?? huh you like freedom?? you like the UC getting killed and captured for you?? Go to cuba or something...God poeple are getting toasted and you are complainging about fox and cnn! My country sent all of our rocks and spears to the USA!

[aru-ma]

Just a question regarding the war, do you think the reporters should be there? I mean on the field being embedded/attached to a battalion/divison/battle group. I know that the're just doing their jobs but should they even be attached?

[kendomushi]

In any real sense no, they should not be there as they are non-combatants.
However, this is a war of public opinion and media hype as much as it is a war of guns, bombs and armies. Iraq is very adept at using the media to promote its view of the world, it effectively used the mdeia to help keep the UN impotent when dealing with it over the past 12 years. If the reporters were not there, then everything in the media would have the weight of Iraqi gile coupled with edited video and an infinite amount of spin. The coalition hopes to use the embedded media to counter that spin and build public support for their actions. So in that sense, they are necessary.

[William Honda]

Aru-ma,

I do not think embedment is a bad thing. I object more to the live (vs taped) broadcasts. I do not think this is a good idea. Why telegraph what we are doing to the enemy?

To the plonkers,

It seems to me that you have no problems criticizing others but you plonk when things get hot for you. It appears as if you run when thing get hot coming your way.

Got plonk?

Sincerely,

William

[JSchmidt]

"Why telegraph what we are doing to the enemy? "

A) The enemy is most likely already aware
B) It's great propaganda
C) The journalists are very tightly controlled in their movements and their broadcasts.

If there's one lesson the US (And the rest of the world, for that matter) learned from Vietnam, was that allowing free access to the press. (And that was before it was real-time), is that showing war for what it really is, is extremly demoralizing.
The first Gulf War was a great example of how to control the press and the only time they really lost it, was with the infamous 'highway of death', which actually caused a lot less casualties than it appeared (But the outcry from the world, was enough to stop the attacks).
Did you notice how very little photage that came out from Afghanistan?...I suspect what happened there was just too dirty to be shown on TV. (Not critizising, just pointing out).
This war is sofar a lot easier..great open plains, tanks storming across and great atillery salvos, lighting up the sky..makes for much better TV...It will be interesting, if they have to fight in the cities, to see if they keep up the same level of coverage...I doubt it, though.
Cynical?..Yes..I believe both sides are lying through their teeth, although there's no doubt that Saddam/Iraq is the most, but I trust very little of the info from both sides. (Many of the allegded attrocities commited by the Iraqis in Kuwait, has later been revealed as fabrications, although there's little doubt that attrocities *were* commited.)
The US/UK has greatly damaged their international reputation by engage in this war the way they did and they *need* to show it as a clean, just war, to help repairing the damage afterwards.

Jakob

[munenmuso]

Wow, eversince plonking has been introduced here, it has become a habit:D.Let's form a plonk club.

Plonkers of the world unite!!!:D:D:D

[KhawMengLee]

PLONK CLUB?...just doesn't have the same ring as FIGHT CLUB...Who is Tyler Durden?;)

[William Honda]

Jakob,

Very strong argument. I can see your point clearly and I agree with you on the issue of propaganda.

I am still unconvinced that live broadcasts are a good thing. I see nothing wrong with a day or two day delay. Does the public need to know immediately? I guess that will be an ongoing debate for the world.

Sincerely,

William

[smith]

Surprise, surprise. Now the war is going to take a little bit longer than Bush et al thought. "Be prepared for some casualties." So now they realise what they're into. What war ever solved a conflict? War is always the reason for the next war.

[mingshi]

Originally posted by William Honda
I am still unconvinced that live broadcasts are a good thing. I see nothing wrong with a day or two day delay. Does the public need to know immediately?

Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.

It's called Big Brother Iraq here. Everything you can see on TV is entertainment. -- To clarify, Infotainment is the word.

I guess you haven't watched enough yet. Live broadcasts are for YOU, not the Iraqi people. Their army is not even smart enough to know smokes cannot hide their cities from air raids. So they won't be watching CNN to see where their enemies are. Especially they'll be busy digging up their imaginary weapons of mass destruction to fight back.

Last night I have my Real-player running "Watch live pictures of Baghdad" from BBC, a fixed live-feed webcast of the city. So I have noices of siren at the background when I was watching the Oscar on the TV screen. Unfortunately today the link is broken. Guess it's been bombed.

Here's an article from BBC:
TV war brings live action home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2879477.stm) :D

[Paburo]

the media is just another weapon.
and a powerful one at that.

have you seen the take of the US prisioners held by iraki ppl yet?
i heard they didn't even air it on the US for fear of demoralization.

[burger boy]

Paburo,
As the soldiers' families are identified, the US media is showing the portion of the tape of that soldier being interviewed.

They are choosing not to show the film of the dead soldiers because of the graphic nature of the tape and out of respect for the families. If your son/brother/father was killed by a bullet to the head, would you want that picture all over the media?

It has nothing to do with demoralization.

burger boy

[Paburo]

burger boy

i didn't come up with the demoralization theory. i heard it on the news and read it on the paper. yes, on the spanish paper. and as you might now, spain is supposedly one of them 'pro-war' countries.

as an individual, if i'd see one of my family members fall on battle i'd feel very saddened.
as a country/army/group, if i see my soldiers being held and killed i'd feel demoralized.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39003000/rm/_39003391_pow18_bryant_vi.ram

like i said it's war, and both US and irak use the media as a weapon.

[William Honda]

Mingshi,

Don't quite know what you meant by propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, however…

That was a good article you sent. T. V. has taken on a life of its own as evidenced by reality shows (which I abhor).

The Iraqi masses may not be watching TV but someone in Iraq is. If "the message" gets to higher ranking generals or officials, it may persuade them to act against S. Hussein. Divide and conquer?

As far as weapons of mass destruction, only time will tell. That is when the reporters will be of utmost importance. I cannot imagine, (even if there are ulterior motives as some have argued), that President Bush would attack if there were no evidence that such weapons exist. Politically he will be toast if they do not exist. Maybe, the reporters are there to document that proof live so no one (no nation) will say the U.S. planted items of mass destruction. It is for the world to see as they are discovered (or not).

In this case, I think the live broadcasts are for the world not just for the U.S. If anything, Vietnam proved that media coverage of war actually demoralizes the side that watches it. No one wants to see their sons and daughters killed or taken prisoner, obviously beaten and/or tortured. The public cannot stomach that for very long. I think that is what Jakob was saying.

It is now a fight to the proper finish, hoping it ends soon.

Sincerely,

William

[KhawMengLee]

Firstly, the tapes show the POWS being questioned not tortured(and maybe they were but what do you think is happening to the Al Quida members at Camp Xray?). It morale boosting propaganda, the US shows captured Iraqi troops all the time, captured, waving white flags, etc. Why bother showing that? Cause it boosts morale, supports their case for war, etc.

Funny, how Bush made all these claims of chemical weapons and yet none have been used and no WMDs have been seen. The 10 missles aimed at Kuwait were comfirmed by the Israelis as being Al samouds.

[kendomushi]

The differenece in what is being shown of Iraqi prisoners and coalition prisoners is that the Iraqi's are not being interviewed, not subjected to anything but being a POW. The conventions on treatment of POWs prohibit such interviews as are being shown of the coalition prisoners. But they do not prohibit simple images of them.
In either case, both sides only do it specifically to embolden their supporters and demoralize the enemy.
WMD will not be used unless Saddam feels he has no other means of saving himself, provided of course he has them.
How are the Israelis confirming the type of missile fired at Kuwait? Somehow I do not believe the Kuwaitis are inviting Israeli's to inspect them and last report I heard still had the Kuwaiti government confirming several of the missiles to be in the SCUD family.
But I'm sure that the peace-niks will never believe Saddam has WMD. If the coalition finds any, they planted them. If they are used against troops or civilians then the coalition did it. Its amazing to me that people see Saddam as innocent and think the only government of questionable policy and action in the world is the US. The human race is largely blind, naieve, and childish in their view of the world.

[JSchmidt]

"Firstly, the tapes show the POWS being questioned not tortured"

Nuts. I've met one of the RAF pilots who were shot down and captured in 1991 and they were constantly being beaten, threatened with execution, etc, during their captivity. Or do you think the POW's got their bruises by walking into a door?
While I'm very much against the way the US/UK started this war, there's no doubt that Saddam is the bad guy.

[KhawMengLee]

Yeah, thats why I put the little "maybe" line there. Still, as I said, what do you think is happening to the Al Quida guys at camp xray? What would you do in their shoes? They bomb your homes from afar, killed your family, friends, when emotions run high it is not surprising what can happen to a POW.

I remember reading somewhere how the iraqis would take the downed pilots to the towns that were bombed and let them run the gauntlet through the crowds gathered.

This war really brings out the worse in us...I remember watching the bombing of baghdad in a pub and there were a bunch of ex-pats(yes, americans) going, "wow! excellent! spectacular! etc!" as the bombs fell...yeah, real humane there...and at the same time every time a coalition fighter is killed, captured or wounded we get the same cheers from the other end.

[kendomushi]

Al Qaeda is irrelevent to treatment of Iraqi POWs. Al Qaeda is not recognized as part of any government, they are therefore not legal combatants as defined in the Geneva conventions. Yes their treatment is less than tender and I'm sure borders at least on phychological intimidation if not abuse/torture. Let some legitimate government claim them as its soldiers and then we can grant them POW status. Strange, I don't see anyone lining up to welcome them in...
The same goes any military who disguise themselves as civilians and launch an attack. They are not at that point acting as legal combatants, not as special forces, not as geurillas, they are terrorists and should be dealt with as such.

[JSchmidt]

" they are terrorists and should be dealt with as such."

Ok, then give them normal legal rights as criminals and try them as such.

Jakob

[AlexM]

Originally posted by kendomushi
The same goes any military who disguise themselves as civilians and launch an attack. They are not at that point acting as legal combatants, not as special forces, not as geurillas, they are terrorists and should be dealt with as such.


How do you distinguish between a military officer who dresses like a civilian to disguise himself and a guerilla who dresses like a civilian because he actually is one most of the time? Don't guerillas also need to blend into the population too? Isn't that part of their strength? Does that make them illegitimate. Was the French resistance during WWII illegitimate? Or the Dutch for that matter? Was not George Washington an illegitimate combattant? Not recognized by any government (except France of course), and certainly not by the one he was fighting.

The distinction you are trying to make is a bit strained by the realities of unconventional warfare.

[KhawMengLee]

Yup, when America does it, guerrila warfare is tactical, clever and brilliant. But when their enemies do it, it is immoral, deceitful, cowardly, illegal, etc.

That's hypocrisy for ya!

[kendomushi]

Geurillas and special forces to not launch attacks from within a group of civilians when acting as legal combatants. Those who do, no matter what force they claim to be with are not acting as legal combatants. Therefore they do not deserve and should not be afforded the protections given to POWs under the Geneva conventions.

[kendomushi]

Yes, the coalition is full of hypocrites. That is why we waste our time and the lives of our soldiers trying to avoid harming the civilians the Iraqi loyalists are using as human shields. If we were true to our aim I guess we'd just nuke them all until they are glowing motes of dust.
Then the peace-niks would be happy and be able to say that they were proven right. After all, being right about the coalition and the US in particular, as long as your opinion is against them that is, is far more important than any consideration. Even more important than the war and loss of human life.
So how about it, lets push the US to use every weapon in its arsenal and to hell with human life. Then the naysayers will be happy. Oh, but then the war will be over so they will have to find something else to be anti-US about. They can't hope for war crimes trials, afterall, we will have nuked any possible evidence and witnesses.

[KhawMengLee]

You know what sucks...the different views that divides us aside, we are all probably really nice people with a common interest in kendo.

From reading previous posts warmongers(joking) Mr Honda, kendomushi, etc sound all right and the same goes for all us anti-war peaceniks(joking).

Sigh...my blood boils...must do some jigeiko to cool off...:D

[Paburo]

Originally posted by kendomushi
Then the naysayers will be happy. Oh, but then the war will be over so they will have to find something else to be anti-US about.
kendomushi. most ppl here are anti-war, not anti-US.
if germany or france or any other country would had started this war unilaterally we would criticize them in the same way.

[mingshi]

Originally from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

[Lynn]

War doesn't solve the core issue. Even though the Arab governments support the US, the Arab pp dun. True, they hate Saddam and his cronies too, but the only group of pp they hate as much would be bush and his cronies. Oppression would only fuel more resistance. Whether it IS oppression in actual fact is not the issue here. What matters is that the Arab pp would VIEW it as such. War would only drive more pp into the path of terrorism. wouldn't that complicate matters?

As Churchill said, the story(or is it history?) of the human race is war. But hopfully that over time, we will learn to put 'war', like many other of our toys, back in the box.

[GMason]

Yes...... but Churchill's bread and butter was WAR !!!! he would never had got into office if it wasn't for the WWII !!

OK War has started and people are getting killed. It is a sad and tragic thing. But it is war !!!......

The thing that bothers me is certainly from and English/British point of view is....

Now the war has started we should now be backing the soliders that are out there.

These guys/gals are out there putting there lifes on the line for, the ELECTED goverment of our country (sorry if you are not British/American) the last thing we want is for these guys to get back from war, and it to end up like Vietnam in America where they are out casts for doing their duty and serving their country.

These people where brave enough to volunteer to join the army to protect us and our way of life (Oh my god I sound like an American.) My father was in the Army and served in Ireland an couple of times he didn't want to go, it was the worst time of my mothers life. But he did his duty and that is all you can ask from a soldier.

You may not like the War, War is never a good thing and everyone loses....... But please don't alienate the soldiers that are out there doing their duty and serving their country!!!!

[burger boy]

hate to be so ignorant, and sorry it's getting off the topic a bit, but I was curious... does England have an all volunteer military like the US does?

burger boy

[lucian]

Yup we do, but all able bodied men can be called up if in need, ex military depending on time served have an allotment of high readiness of up to 10years after leaving the army/service and if war breaks out in that period we can be called up and told to be at base by the weekend
We no longer press gang people in to army or navy etc although personally I thing its best way to get rid of some murderers/scum :)

[smith]

I feel sorry for all the kids who joined up in peacetime because they just wanted an apprenticeship or because the armed forces were the only people hiring in their area. And now they're like, "Oh shit! I've actually gotta go and kill people now. I knew that $150/week was too good to be true."

[aru-ma]

Hey, dont forget for members of the U.S armed forces who are inside Iraq receive an extra $200 a day whil those in Kuwait gets and extra $150 a day, and those sailors dont get extra money.

[kendomushi]

My problem with the comments here is that they are so exclusively focused against the US but as usual offer no alternative solutions. Most people don't open their eyes to what their own countries do, did, have done. The fact is that many countries do many questionable, even evil things - not just the US. And the US is not solely responsible for this war. France, Germany, etc who were against the war offered no viable options for resolving the situation, they merely supported the continued suffereing of the Iraqi people under UN sanctions. While that would not mean military conflict, it still meant the slow death of thousands unless the Iraqi government suddenly, fully, and honestly complied with the UN resolutions as they agreed to do.
All of our countries, inlcuding the US, UK, France, Germany, China, all those in favor of and all those opposed to war are guilty of letting the situation in Iraq go on for 12 long years with only the general Iraqi populace suffering the weight of UN sanctions.
If the UN is to be effective and relevent to the 21st century it must act to enforce its mandates. But it will never do so unless we, the citizens of the world, educate ourselves to reality and pressure our governments to do what each of us knows is right.
All of the pro and anti war posturing that has come about in recent months is hollow and insincere. Where were these thousands and millions the past 12 years? Most were sitting snuggly in their homes not caring about what happened the next street over much less in some distant part of the globe. This apathy, complacency, disregard, or lack of concern for others is why we can still so easily wage war, steal, cheat and cause trouble for others. We are a selfish species. Until those of us who know better do something to make ourselves active and strive to educate and involve others, the world will never change.

[m_french]

Kendomushi- very well put there has been a lot of debate (and US bashing) in this thread as to the ulterior Motives of the present government of the United States. I challenge all of the people on this forum to find a country that doesn't have an agenda. The important thing to remember through out this conflict is how we got here, who are we helping and what were the other choices:beard:

[m_french]

Mingshi- interesting choice of beadtime reading, do feel enlighted quoting Hitler??????:beard:

[KhawMengLee]

I for one can honestly say I do not hate America. Some of the best mates I've met in my life so far are yanks and of course there were assholes but hey, assholes are everywhere. As someone once said, "Any man who judges people as a group or race is a halfwit."

Its the motive of the US govt. I am suspicious about. This is not me being paraniod but its a result of the experiences I have had in my own country with so called American "good intentions". This was of course, during the asian economic crisis and how at the same time our DPM was being impeached on corruption charges. The US media played up the hype and made it like he was an innocent guy and that there was a huge uprising of support for him.

It was pure bull, I was sitting in Australia watching a report on how a so called riot broke out and when I called friends at home they said no such thing happened.

Now it is no secret that the US did not like our PM because of his outspoken views and especially our trading with Cuba. I mean Al Gore came to the APEC conference we were hosting and insulted our PM in public by saying that he shoudn't treat Anwar(DPM) as such. Its like Tony Blair going over to the US and saying on national TV that Bush is violating human rights with the way he treats the peace protestors.

This actually has more to it but its to much to write at this moment. Needless to say, I am just cautious as to the motives behind this all...

[JSchmidt]

"Mingshi- interesting choice of beadtime reading, do feel enlighted quoting Hitler?"

'Mein Kampf' still today, stands as a very important book in leadership. I bet you that propaganda hawks of any country will have read it. (US included).
It's not a book about gassing jews or slaughtering russians, its about power and how to get and maintain it.
Hitler's ability for political manuevering was amazing and that combined with clever use of intimidation allowed him to take a minor political party into power and from there completly take over the country (And subsequently most of Europe).

Jakob

[m_french]

Originally posted by JSchmidt


'Mein Kampf' still today, stands as a very important book in leadership.
_____________________________________________
its about power and how to get and maintain it.
Hitler's ability for political manuevering was amazing and that combined with clever use of intimidation allowed him to take a minor political party into power and from there completly take over the country (And subsequently most of Europe).

Jakob [/B]

Jakob- if it's a book on leadership you want try Jack Welch, this idolizing of a megalomaniac mass murderer can't do much for your health or social outlook.

And as for hitlers amazing political manuevering let's remember he was only in power from 1933 to 1945 and while 12 years does make a decent reign of terror it hardly constitutes an impressive career in government. Even the present ruler of Iraq has been in power longer than that.:beard:

[JSchmidt]

Who's talking about idolizing?. Much of what's written in 'Mein Kampf' is the same way propaganda is used today...especially in the moment with this war going on.
If anything, it's enlighting as it reveals our leaders using the same techniques..yet, you wouldnt accuse them of idolizing Hitler?.
You could extrapolate that and say that the way of the Samurai was (wrongly) idolized by Japan in WW2...yet that doesnt mean that doing kendo means warring the pacific and chopping peoples head off.

Jakob

[mingshi]

Originally posted by JSchmidt
...yet that doesnt mean that doing kendo means warring the pacific and chopping peoples head off.

Yeah, more Chinese need to learn that too. I used to go to late dinner with some Aikido folks when I was in Hong Kong. Still couldn't get way with angery/disgusted looks from the locals on the street... Probably thinking that we were some Yamatodamashii Imperialists trying to look cool with Japanese swords and sticks.

Mr m_french: Being able to quote from Mein Kampf is just common sense to me. These nights my bed time reading is "Stupid White Man" by Michael Moore.

[AlexM]

Here is nifty little article on why we should be wary of news reports for the moment. And rest assured it has nothing to with great media or military conspiracies. Just the realities of covering complexe events and some of the problems in dealing with a 24-hour news culture.

Have fun with it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2892159.stm

[Tako-kun]

GMason

Can we not distinguish between support and appreciation for the members of our armed forces and disagreement with or opposition towards the policies of the political administrations who decide where and when our troops must fight? A soldier is bound by duty to obey his or her orders, whether they personally agree with them or not; therefore they are in fact reliant on the private citizenry to oversee the government's actions, and to make our views known when we strongly disagree with them. This is beneficial for our governments who, although they are not bound to make all decisions through referendum, have a moral requirement to keep in mind the will of the citizens when formulating policy (at least if they plan on getting re-elected).

I have serious concerns about the reasons given for starting this war. I do not think it will make life better for the American people, the Iraqi people or anyone else (other than, perhaps, a few small special interest groups). I have great respect for people who have served their country in wartime, and I hate the idea of our soldiers dying for a bad idea, or worse, killing for one (I bet the F-16 pilot who accidentally dropped a bomb on that bus full of Syrian civilians wishes he could have just stayed home).


/off crappy attempt at rhetoric in a cheap ploy to boost my post count ;)

[William Honda]

Mingshi,

You must have a different Mein Kampf translation than most of the world. You stated that it was originally from Mein Kampf are you sure?????

I think it should read more like “All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed.” This is out of Chapter VI.

Your quote is close but close only counts when throwing grenades.

Where does “paradise as hell….” come from????

Did you pull you quote off of some college essay? If you are going to quote it, do it right.

William

[Inouye02]

how about a lighter side to all this ...
Q. What do Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common?
A. They both have Kurds in their way.

Q. What do Saddam Hussein and General Custer have in common?
A. They both want to know where those Tomahawks are coming from!

Q. Have you heard about the new Iraqi air force exercise program?
A. Each morning you raise your hands above your head and leave them
there.

[kendomushi]

Well said Tako-kun.
Most people however think the so called free world is full of deomcracies. In fact it is full of republics. If we did have a true democracy, there would be a referendum on every issue, every proposal, every policy presented to the government.
As we live in a republic, we rely on our elected leaders to legislate as we desire and in our best interests. The fact of the matter is that they do not always do so. It is up to us to put electoral pressure on them to make sure they do, as much as possible, legislate as we want. However, it will not work 100% of the time. I remember when I lived in the UK hearing a parliamentarian say "I was not elected to legislate as my constituents desire. I was elected to legislate as I believe is best for them." That is the truth of a republic (though I guarantee virtually any representative for any part of the US who tried to admit such a thing in public would never win re-election).

[Inouye02]

hey mr honda , wats krackin ?

[William Honda]

Inouye2

Heads…….mostly mine.

I'm a little too old, a little too slow, and moderately too fat.


Tako kun and Kendomushi,

In our Pledge of Allegiance it clearly states "… and to the Republic, for which it stands…" yet if you ask, most Americans will say they live in a democracy. It was most pleasant to see your posts. Do kids still recite this in school? I don't think so.

By the way, Red Skelton had recorded the meaning of the Pledge as explained to him in school. I should have kept it. It was awesome.

Regardless of which side of the "fence" we are on, I think we all want this to be over quickly.

William

[Karaken]

Something I found on a local Golf Course..

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC


Salute....

[titus]

Originally posted by kendomushi

I remember when I lived in the UK hearing a parliamentarian say "I was not elected to legislate as my constituents desire. I was elected to legislate as I believe is best for them." That is the truth of a republic (though I guarantee virtually any representative for any part of the US who tried to admit such a thing in public would never win re-election).

Excellent point by kendomushi. I had a senior-level university class with a very famous political sociologist named Gianfranco Poggi who has written extensively on "the state." And he was saying the exact same thing about politicians as decision makers, NOT as proxies for Joe Average.

[nodachi]

"Do kids still recite this in school? I don't think so."

Some do, some don't. Where I taught last year, it was half and half. The half that did, did it because it was automatic. The half that didn't, didn't because they were anti-everything or felt like it was something "the man" forced them to do, so they refused, which is now their free decision to make.

However, I think it is only a matter of habit or school ritual when kids actually do it. Most of them didn't feel any meaning behind it all, nor did they probably even think about it.

To TRULY understand (but not necessarily support) or feel for (or against) things like the pledge, they need to mature more and move into the world of adulthood first. There are exceptions, but most kids, regardless of what they say, don't have the perspective to fully comprehend such hefty political world events.

My apologies to the kids who do actually comprehend, but my thoughts come from the kids I have had the opportunity to observe and talk to.

I feel for the teachers who have to deal with the warmongering kids who don't think beyond the fact that they want to go to war to kill someone in Iraq because they are "evil" and that is the kids only justification for it. It is frightening what some of these kids think now a days.

Sorry for my tangent, but I worry about the future, based on looking at who is coming up to take the reigns in the next generation...

[JSchmidt]

"And he was saying the exact same thing about politicians as decision makers, NOT as proxies for Joe Average."

It goes both ways. They are also elected to represent their constituents interest. (And *any* politician will promise that).
Had there been an election in the UK just prior to the start of the war, Tony Blair might not have been PM any longer.
(Hmm, in hindsight, since the alternatives in the UK are rather pathetic, he might just have kept it).
If a leader goes against the wish of the majority, is he then really representing the country?.

Jakob

[Ostrak]

Originally posted by JSchmidt
If a leader goes against the wish of the majority, is he then really representing the country?.

Jakob

That is a very interesting question. Personally, I think a leader can go against the wishes of the majority and still be representing the country. The majority may be not be well informed; may not be privy to all information necessary to make an informed decision; or may just be thinking short term. The leader may still do what is best for the country (as a whole) even if he doesn't listen to the majority.

[Karaken]

Originally posted by Ostrak


The leader may still do what is best for the country (as a whole) even if he doesn't listen to the majority.

The trait of true leader is to follow his conviction rather than following the public poll. Too many modern politicians following the result of the poll for fear of not being re-elected. For that we can have any moran or robot do the same thing. We can even automate that with a rudimentary computer program.

Center - political center?

[JSchmidt]

"The leader may still do what is best for the country (as a whole) even if he doesn't listen to the majority."

On what basis? If the country is against what the leader is doing, is he then really doing whats best for the country?.
And how do you determine that the leader really *knows* whats best?

Jakob

[munenmuso]

Yes, because that person is in "authority" and possesing the same due to popular election, so there is a presumption that the leader's decision is for the good of the majority. The problem is some decisions may not get popular support or opinion but as long as there is checks and balances, those decisions may not be final and executory and subject for judicial review if necesary. But in cases of emergency, a leader may decide using special powers of emergency. And voting for him in the next election is another issue.

[Ostrak]

Originally posted by JSchmidt
[BOn what basis? If the country is against what the leader is doing, is he then really doing whats best for the country?.
And how do you determine that the leader really *knows* whats best?

Jakob [/B]

The basis depends on the situation. Simply because the majority of the country opposes the leader does not mean that he is per se not doing what is best for the country.

I've known many people that say "yeah, that's a great idea" regarding a solution (you pick the situation, it happens to me all the time). Foreign affairs is a great example...they (the proverbial they) say "but of course, that's the best solution." Unfortunately, other than the solution itself they have no idea of the problem, no concept of the culture, people, history that they are dealing with. Sometimes they don't even know where in the world the country is that they are talking about (that usually pisses me off). This appears more of the norm than the exception to me.

I'm not advocating (by any means) a blind acceptance of any decisions by leadership, of any kind. Instead, I am merely advocating informed criticism. If you (proverbial you) don't like a position then find out more about the situation before you criticize. By informing ourselves we can determine if the leader (or his/her advisors) really do know best. If not then make your voice heard.

[kendomushi]

Believing that an elected leader or official must do as the majority seem to want or he is not fit to lead is exactly how the Clinton presidency was run. Every decision was made based on public opinion polls. The problem with doing as the majority seem to desire is that you can always ask only the people who will be likely to answer in the way the leadership desires. For example, many news reports talk of the huge popular outpouring of anti war protestors in the US and UK. This seems to be the majority opinion. But the popularity of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush seem to have only gone up since the war began. How can this be if the majority are against war?
The best we can hope for is that we choose our leaders well and even when we disagree with them hopefully history will prove that the did do the best they believed they could for us at the time. And if we find ourselves in so much disagreement, or find that our leaders repeatedly do not legislate as they claimed they would, we have to use every electroal and if applicable legal means to remove them.
However, the sad truth is that the majority of eligible voters in the majority of free countries in the world today do not vote. This failure on their part really cancels their right to complain how their elected officials legislate I feel.

[Steve Bishop]

I am a Britain...believe me, we love a good fight. Previous kendoka at our club have included British Army soldiers.
My father and the people of Malta were bombed for nearly 2 years during the second world war and won the George Cross...I'm sure they would have prefered not to have been...

My Father is not unique by any means but he would be interested, I'm sure in your views as to how the war should be "conducted" with civilians in mind.
Steve B

[JSchmidt]

"But the popularity of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush seem to have only gone up since the war began. How can this be if the majority are against war?"

As I understand it (with regards to the UK), once the war started, people rallied behind the war effort, but not the reason behind the war, which is two different kinds of fish.
I am strongly (very strongly) against the way the war was started, but I am fully behind the removal of Saddam and want to see it over with as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as practical possible. (On both sides).
So if someone polled me, if I was behind the war effort, I would say yes. If they polled me, if I thought that the US/UK was right to go about it the way they did, I would say no.
I believe that is the 'popularity increase' you have seen.

Jakob

[JSchmidt]

P.S. Ostrak, I largely agree, but with the large amount of dis-information thrown around, it has been very hard to believe the UK goverment. (I should say that until 6 weeks ago, I was living in the UK). Add a huge amount of equally false anti-war propaganda and the whole situation have been a big mess.

P.P.S. And thanks for turning this into a civil and interesting thread again!

[kendomushi]

If being behind the war effort is the reason their popularity has gone up, then we are the biggest bunch of hypocrits in existence. I hope people are honestly either behind the war effort and its goals, or entirerly against it and working for some other goal -through legal and peaceful means of course.

[Ostrak]

I have to agree with JSchmidt about the problems with polling. Polling sometimes suggests a particular answer, or is too ambiguous. I've been polled and had to say "what, what exactly are you asking me?" I could often answer the question in 2 completely different ways. Since we're in the Iraq thread consider:

Q: Do you support the War in Iraq?
A: Well...what exactly do we mean by the word support here? I'm fully behind our troops but I don't think we should have attacked as soon as we did. So my answer could be yes and could be no.

Q: Do you think War with Iraq right now is the best solution?
A: Well..."right now" hmmm...Once you start I don't think you should stop (probably endanger more lives all the way around) so right now I would say "yes" just because we are there although I would have liked to see some more attempts to have the UN take action before we attacked. So...I wouldn't have attacked right now but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. My answer could be "no" because I think we should have waited longer.

Q: Do you think a dictator that kills his own people, like Saddam Hussein (suggesting its own answer) should be removed from power by all means necessary before he gains Weapons of Mass Destruction?
A: When phrased like this who would say no? Who wouldn't want a dictator that kills his own people to be removed from power. This question could be used to say "X amount of people believe that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power before he gets weapons of mass destruction." Or just that Saddam should be removed from power.

Q: Do you support sending members of the (insert your country here) military to die in a foreign country when we have not used all peaceful means at our disposal to resolve the conflict?
A: That one answers itself as well. This question also assumes that there are peaceful means left to resolve the conflict which is a matter of opinion so perhaps it should have been preceded by asking whether all peaceful means of resolving the conflict had been expended and then if they said no ask the question above.

The problem with all of these questions is that the media doesn't tell you what question they are really asking. Even if they did, people could interpret the meaning diferently. One person might answer yes and another no and they both might believe the exact same thing but got confused by the ambiguity of the language presented.

Kendomushi...The ambiguity of polling seems to me the problem here and I don't think it's necessarily hypocricy. Consider if the question is something as simple as "Do you think the President is doing a good job?" or "Do you support the President's efforts?" "Do you support the President's efforts to ensure the safety of our country?" Furthermore, people can be behind the goal of the war, i.e. removing Saddam from power, but not believe that War right now is the appropriate course of action. I don't think that makes them hypocrites.

P.S. I enjoy the open debate here lately rather than frustrated fist waving.

[kendomushi]

Ostrak - I agree with you that polling is ambiguous. That is the point I was trying to make about the Clinton presidency. All their decisions were based on opinion polls so that it appeared they were siding with the majority. In fact though it is very easy to phrase a question to create a desired response or impression and then spin those answers to meet desired objectives.
My saying that I hope their popularity hasn't gone up just because people are now behind the war effort is a bit too black and white in a world of muddied greys I guess. Still I hope people are more fully for or against the body of action and honest with themselves as well as the rest of us on their opinions and felings. Makes for nice healthy and educational debate no matter what side each of us is on.

[Karaken]

Gentlemen, democracy assumes knowledge and effort of it's citizens to be elligible for and willing to participate in the process. Not only there are mass of people unaware of the priciple of democracy but also there are many who knows but fail to fulfill the duty of the citizenship. I, for one, fail to comprehend all of the cadidates background and what they stand for when it come to vote. I'd need to devote almost full time for 3-4 weeks to study and follow the president, the congress, senate, state assembly, county executive, the judge, the sheriff, the list goes on and on.. So who is the real mind behind this poll? Someone who thinks whoever's on TV is a celebrity and must be the important one? Someone who thinks Bush is the president and he's from Texas so he must be right?
Also, there are many confidential information the general public is not exposed to.. I don't think following the poll is the way of the leader. As in LOVE STORY, the true leadership is never having to say "I'm sorry". He has the burden of leading the opinion of the uneducated and uninformed to the ture goal of his conviction. That's why the leader's moral is so important.
Is this manipulation? Oh yes.. But the motive of his manipulation is the basis of true leadership that can only be judged by history but only to be known by his conscience.

Center - Middle - Center

[Tako-kun]

This is an excellent thread; well argued by all. :)

[Tako-kun]

Karaken:

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.""


A state under the control of it's military is a concept as old as recorded history, whereas political, ideological and press freedom are comparatively recent ideas, and were not the inventions of any military. Poets, reporters, campus organizers… thinkers: they first conceived of these ideas, gave us these freedoms. The role of the military in any democracy or republic is to preserve them.

[Tako-kun]

Ostrak

"Personally, I think a leader can go against the wishes of the majority and still be representing the country. The majority may be not be well informed; may not be privy to all information necessary to make an informed decision; or may just be thinking short term. The leader may still do what is best for the country (as a whole) even if he doesn't listen to the majority."

Karaken

"As in LOVE STORY, the true leadership is never having to say "I'm sorry". He has the burden of leading the opinion of the uneducated and uninformed to the ture goal of his conviction. That's why the leader's moral is so important.
Is this manipulation? Oh yes.. But the motive of his manipulation is the basis of true leadership that can only be judged by history but only to be known by his conscience."


This argument assumes that the leader's only reason for pursuing political power is to serve the best interests of the state, rather than a desire to wield power for it's own sake (John Ralston Saul's Voltaire’s Bastards is an excellent, illuminating read), or that the leader's desire to serve has not been compromised by allegiances to those who helped them attain power. I'm not saying that this isn't the ideal; just that in practice it often (usually) doesn't work out that way

[Tako-kun]

kendomushi

"Believing that an elected leader or official must do as the majority seem to want or he is not fit to lead is exactly how the Clinton presidency was run. Every decision was made based on public opinion polls."


Not to say that using polling as the only way for a government to make decisions is a good idea, but in a discussion about the Bush Administration's war on Iraq, bringing up the Clinton Administration as an example of how not to govern is not the strongest argument. The Clinton Admin. benefited from a decade-long tech-based economic boom which they didn't really directly create (but they didn't do anything to screw it up either), and from a foreign affairs climate (which they did help create) in which American citizens were, overall, safer than they had been in some time (nuclear cold war, then Gulf War 1), and safer than they are now. What they really did well though, is:

1- (other than some skepticism on the part of some Republican hardliners regarding the administration's handling of foreign [military] affairs, the sincerity of which can be difficult to discern because the Clinton presidency saw the beginning of a level of political partisanship which had not been seen in American politics before) Project an image of general competency, which is always reassuring both to the citizens they are governing and to other nations (you may have believed Clinton was corrupt, or degenerate, but these are lesser faults in a head of state than being perceived as intellectually deficient or crazy [note that I say "perceived as" because even if you're not, people who suspect you of being so will be less likely to trust your policies].

2- Display a willingness to make compromises in their positions in order to secure the support of a large portion of the voting public and to build coalitions on the international scene (you can call it governing by public opinion, but making compromises to get part of what you want while giving the other interested parties part of what they want is the basis of diplomacy [and the democratic political process], and is much better than sticking with an intransigent, uncompromising agenda [whether out of moral principle or simple self interest], being unable to get anyone to agree with you, and either ending up with nothing or having to resort to force to get what you want {sound familiar?}]).

It will be at least a decade or more before events have played out enough that we can begin to know for sure, but do you care to make a bet which administration will at that time be judged to have created more peace and prosperity, both at home and abroad? Remember, before Sept 11, Bush was doing his best to start a new cold war with China, pretending the middle east didn't exist and he's done nothing but shovel dirt on the economy since he came into office.

[Tako-kun]

Hee Hee, 10+ posts!
Tako-kun avatar in 3...2...1...

[KhawMengLee]

Notice how the case for war was because Saddam had WMD and Bio/Chem weapons and he will supply Al Quida with them.

No such weapons have yet to be found. The 3000 chem suits found were from before the Gulf War...CNN did a report and it was said that the suits could be from the Iran/Iraq war. To tell one had to look at the expiration dates on the suit. the embedded reporter was asked to look for the date, he read it out as expired in 1990.

Al Quida is a fundamentalist group, Saddam is a secular muslim and they hate each other. Why do you think the shiites in Iraq fought against Saddam? Or Bin Laden calls him a traitor? Note, the shiites are the ones you saw recently in their yearly celebration cutting themselves and their children to show grief over the death of one of their prophets.

The situation is the same in Turkey. The army is secular but the politicians are all fundamentalists, which is why the army supports the coalition but they(US) can't get authorization to come into Turkey.

Its funny how the case is just reduced to Saddam being an evil man whose regime kills and oppresses the Iraqi people. None of the people "liberated" so far show any support.

I would be very wary of who the US chooses as an ally in this war...supporting the shiites to rise up against Saddam and then giving them an opportunity to take power may lead to more troubles down the road...

[KhawMengLee]

ps. well posted Mr Octopus :D

[Tako-kun]

KhawMengLee

*rei*
:)

[Tato]

Hi everybody.

I've been reluctant to post in this thread, mostly because the war debate has been a very emotive one, until lately.

Finnally I've read a good bunch of good posts, exposing what I belive that are partial views of the sames concepts.

Yes, freedom and democracy were won by the soldiers, but in fact you must put there the citizen-soldier concept, much more close to what the USA and French people where at the time when they first tryed to create modern democracies.

And yes, gouvernement sometimes must make decisions that are against their electors "public opinion", remember that most of us are under democratic regimes where the citizens will is only stated once on a while, when we elect the guys on who we delegate the power. And this power incloudes the capacity to take decisions that are aginst our "public opinion". I don't belive that you can conduct gouvernment over polls.

Finnally, democratic gouvernements just can't go all their way taiking decisions against the "will" of their electors, because they will be changed in the next elections. That's why profesional politicians, people who seek for power and the ways to keep it, try to hear the "will" of their societies, in order to be re-elected.

All of those concepts, cicitzen-soldier, delegation of power, trade off between personal power lust and public service (and many more that haven't been exposed here) are the backbone of our political system. And their application has bringed us the 2nd Iraq war.

I do know that the reasons for start this war are multiple and complex (oil, will to create a real democratic state in the middle of the islamic world, prevention of a potential threat by weapons of mass destruction, personal interests, and some more). If and only if, at the end, the coalition suceeds to create a real democratic gouvernemts there, then I think that all this mess can be justified. The trouble is that we can't be sure that this is going to be the final result, and at the same time there's that old saying "you can't have an omelete whitout breaking some eggs".

In fact all the Iraq issue is an ethical dilema, we know that Sadam will be a threat if he can use the oil resources to developpe weapons, we also know that the only way to prevent him of doing such a thing is by complete issolation and strong control(which will condemn the population to large sufferings) or by war (the same thing). If you add to this inpet diplomacy, electoralism, and real defense of our national interests (and here I understad the interest of each diferent countries like Spain, USA, UK, France and all), then you understad better how we ended here, discussing this.

We are far away from Kendo, and at the same time we're not. I just happy to know that democracy is an issue for so many among us.

Rei.

PD: Sometimes I wonder what and ortographical correct would do for me, ;)

[Ostrak]

Originally posted by Tako-kun
This argument assumes that the leader's only reason for pursuing political power is to serve the best interests of the state, rather than a desire to wield power for it's own sake (John Ralston Saul's Voltaire’s Bastards is an excellent, illuminating read), or that the leader's desire to serve has not been compromised by allegiances to those who helped them attain power. I'm not saying that this isn't the ideal; just that in practice it often (usually) doesn't work out that way

Tako-kun--No offense, but you are mistaken and mischaracterizing my position. I said "can" and "may which are permissive words. To paraphrase myself "It is possible that a leader is acting in the best interests of his/her country even if he/she goes against the wishes of the majority." This does not, nor does my original statement, make the assumption you say it does. If I were to say: "A leader is acting in the best interests of his/her country if they go against the wishes of the majority," then the case would be different.

P.S. Kendomushi--sorry, I see what you were saying now (enter-the ambiguity of language).

[kendomushi]

Tako-kun, as an american who lived overseas during the entire Clinton presidency I saw none of the perceptions you seem to have attributed to him. The vast majority of US and non-US citizens alike saw him as a man who cared nothing for his position, cared only for the poll and spin and ran the country through his scrotum.
The economic boom he was head of was set in motion years before his presidency. Though you can argue he did nothing to foul up that situation, you can just as fully argue that he did nothing to sustain it and that is why there is currently an economic decline.
As for foriegn policy, the only thing Clinton did was threaten to go to war with Iraq to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky affair and cause the perception and respect for the US as a nation to sink to new lows.
Even given the current state of world events, I feel more safe as a US citizen overseas now than I ever did during the Clinton presidency.
Also, it is indeed the soldier who has given the USA its freedoms. It is the function of the soldier to preserve those freedoms with his or her life if necessary. Thinkers and writers first convieved of these ideas, but it is a fact that in the USA at least (and many other countries both modern and ancient) that those ideas are installed by and exist largely due to the soldier. Are you aware that soldiers in the USA actually sacrifice many rights and freedoms when they choose to serve in its forces? Many of those rights are the vary ones they preserve, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the freedome to choose where they live, what jobs they are willing to do, and more. Without that willingness to sacrifice themselves in so many ways, the freedoms of the poet, author, thinker, etc could not exist.

[Sinta]

President Clinton from my point of view, did very little during his presidency (well, when I say little, I mean no big step for the American people forwards.) But where I see George Bush Jr. being very blunt, Clinton had something that GWB Jr. didn't have.... charm. I guess that's why he survived. :)

[J. Schitt]

Saw the below in Asia Times online.

Wouldn't describe them as symapthetic to the US cause, so it made me wonder, do some of you really care about humanity or are your objections just political?

Refers to the war that Iraq waged on Iran.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED03Ak05.html

"The devastating war, which lasted eight years, left about 1.5 million Iranians dead and wounded, including 100,000 who fell victim to Iraqi chemical weapons. Iran also suffered a phenomenal damage to its industry, infrastructure and agriculture estimated at US$1 trillion, apart from the destruction of its natural resources, including tens of thousands of hectares of forests, pastures and farmland. Moreover, the Iraqi military committed war crimes in the occupied Iranian territories, including the gang rape of women and children and the destruction of such civilian facilities as residential dwellings and medical centers."

[titus]

Originally posted by kendomushi
Even given the current state of world events, I feel more safe as a US citizen overseas now than I ever did during the Clinton presidency.


My dad went to Harvard with GWB. If you heard the stories I have about this man, you would not rest so soundly.

On the other hand, I'm not a pascifist. War will always exist, and somebody is always going to have to play police officer for the world, so right now it just happens to be the US.

[kendomushi]

Originally posted by titus


My dad went to Harvard with GWB. If you heard the stories I have about this man, you would not rest so soundly.


And if most people heard the stories of my life during and since college they would wonder how I've survived without at least being committed to an institution for the criminally insane.
The reality I live in is safer now. The vast majority of my friends from the US who are here agree with me. Even friends in Europe agree. Granted I do not think GWB is our savior or any where close to the best thing since sliced bread. But the fact remains that I, and many others feel safer either because of or in spite of Mr. Bush and current world affairs.
I hope that says something good about the world in general. As you said there will always be war; there will always also be extremeists who want to make others suffer for precieved or real wrongs. I just hope the rest of us continue to outnumber them more and more every day.

[Lynn]

well, i'm not too sure bout wat the media of each member countries air but i'm sure all of u have heard the little song the Iraqis are singing about Saddam.

«Birruh, waddam,

Nifdilek ya Saddam!»

In case you're wondering what they're saying, it means:


«With our life, with our blood,

We sacrifice for you, oh Saddam!»


it does seem that the Iraqis are none too pleased at being "liberated" by the coalition forces....

[Ares2907]

You'd be chanting your guts out too if Saddam's secret police were hanging out in the vicinity.
Option 1: Pretend (or not) to chant like a zealot
Option 2: Have your tongue removed or family members killed

Hmm, I think I know which one I'd pick.

[titus]

Originally posted by kendomushi

And if most people heard the stories of my life during and since college they would wonder how I've survived without at least being committed to an institution for the criminally insane.
The reality I live in is safer now. The vast majority of my friends from the US who are here agree with me. Even friends in Europe agree. Granted I do not think GWB is our savior or any where close to the best thing since sliced bread. But the fact remains that I, and many others feel safer either because of or in spite of Mr. Bush and current world affairs.
I hope that says something good about the world in general. As you said there will always be war; there will always also be extremeists who want to make others suffer for precieved or real wrongs. I just hope the rest of us continue to outnumber them more and more every day.

To be honest, the whole Iraq thing doesn't bother me very much, just GWB. However, I think that the war will probably end soon and there won't be the kind of Armaggedon scenario that many people are waiting (hoping?) for.

As long as GWB doesn't decide to go after North Korea and destabilize East Asia, I'll be a happy camper.

[munenmuso]

Just because you heard some crazy zealots chanting for Saddam as the chosen Messiah doesn't mean that Iraq is not divided. For sure, majority of Iraq doesn't want Saddam to stay for another day in the seat of power and continue his reign of oppression. But an attack in Iraq, wether just or not, is not an attack against Saddam or tyrrany alone. It is an attack against the whole of the Iraqi people. While Saddam is the villain here it doesn't follow that GWB is the hero of the hour, much more he is equally liable for crime against humanity from the POV of the Iraqi people.

[Chusan]

The few Iraqi friends I have don`t really care about the Saddam/Bush thing. They are not so concerned with democracy, free elections or similar things, their main problem is getting enough food, being supplied with sufficient amount of medicine, and, o yes, some kind of peace might be fine, too...

[munenmuso]

Of course, the hungry people on the street doesn't care about science , astronomy, physics or current events if their stomachs are empty, they only care for food to live for another day. This is where usually a despot enters, when he sees a nation struggling for basic needs out of poverty he takes advantage of the situation by giving them directly what they need. This kind of relationship established a strong bond between a despot and a handful or group of supporters by guaranteeing them material benefits on a limited and protracted time frameand usually short term. So allegiance to this kind of leader is also guaranteed creating a hero worship and a bond that is measured by material benefits instead of creating a long term plan for his constituents through proper distribution and allocation. this kind of management is usually assymptomatic to a government where the leader is despotic. And when the situation calls for it, those handful constituents are always battle ready and prepared to die for reason of being blindly grateful.

[kendomushi]

Well, the military outcome is a foregone conclusion. The coalition will remove the current regime. The real war will then be to successfully set up the infrastructure and aid needed to let the Iraqis get about forming a government of their own choosing AND getting the world to see the US as a liberator, fair and even handed, as opposed to just another colonizer. Unless the US finds a non-military way to deal with North Korea, and stops backing the Israelis at every turn, and lets the Iraqis get on with their life without US control in short order, it is a war not easily or even likely to be won.