Bush

[Keverzwijn]

Hello everyone

the Bush thread is back online, it disappeared from the database by accident. But no worries, we're again able to discuss George W. Bush, the upcoming elections, the Iraqi debacle, ...anything Bush related. Please make sure that you control yourself in this thread. Well fundamented opinions are better than mindless ranting about how dumb the guy is. There was a problem in the other thread with people who overreacted.

There also a little poll to check how this community feels about Bush, before this thread disappeared there were 13 contra's (or so) and some 'I dont care votes'.

You can find alot of information about Bush and some very nice videos that summarise his bad points in 30 seonds.

www.bushin30seconds.com

[Eomund]

Oh yes the good old Bush!
notworthy ALLAH!

[Mirkgirl]

And please mark what Kev said... no need to go violent and/or offensive to prove your point... the pony is a place where everything can be discussed and it's sad to see the serious threads getting closed because of people who post before thinking (:

[Keverzwijn]

So what do you guys think about 'the weapons of massdestruction ' in iraq. It appears that Bush is reversing his words. There might have been wrong information and there might be no weapons at all.:angry: He finally approved an indepent inquiry about tatt, but the results wont be out tilll after the elections ofcourse.

[Steve the Great]

Okay, I try to summarise my thoughts about the policy of Mr. Bush...
I think, nobody belives that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a good thing, and people of Iraq (or at least bigger part of them) liked that.
There would be also more so-called "rogue nations" (umm... I think, I hate this expression pfbbt ) - e.g. North Korea, certain countries in Middle East, Lybia, some countries in Central Africa - that IMHO should change or be changed for a better and peaceful World...
But maybe this changings are not in the interest of the US at this period, and/or defeating Iraq was a clear and relatively easily attainable aim (compared to e.g. North Korea) for the nation.
The 'problem' is that the US sometimes had other interests and had quite good relations with Iraq and the taliban. (As far as I remember Winston Churchill said once: 'The United Kingdom has no friends, it has only interests') Maybe this policy (and still more the communication of this policy ) would annoys some people...
So... about mass communication: I think, the Bush Administration would have convienced people (not only in the US) by the help of the media that Iraq means a real threat for the US or for the whole world. Some of these statements were refuted later, but unfortunately refutations are always less important for people than primary statements. Some of these media statements:
- Iraq had a close connection to the terrible attack against WTC -> there is no real evidence
- Iraq had many WMDs -> no WMDs were found until now and Bush seems to reverse this statement (But Iraq definitely had had WMDs earlier )
- During the war, almost every day (or evening, when people watch the news) a breaking news was appeared that WMD, a truck with WMD, warhead, etc. was found -> these reports had to be confuted, but usually at dawn, when people sleep
- The Incident of Jessica Lynch: the first reports said that she was captured (and might be raped) by evil iraqi soldiers, she fight like a lioness, and rescueing her was a very dangerous mission -> she had a serious car accident (no real fighting raping, etc), the rescuing mission wasn't dangerous at all, but soldiers shot a lot to seem very showy in TV

[Keverzwijn]

I aint saying that the Iraqi regime was a nice regime, they did horrible things to their people and neighbouring countries. But there are so many more countries in the world were the same things happen, and where there is no reaction by the US. Iraq or afghanistan wasn't invaded to help those people, but because of US interests in the regio. In fact, the US helped Iraq when they were fighting iran. They helped the afghans when they were fighting against the Russians, (Rambo 3 anyone). Not because it's the humane thing to do, but because of political reasons. Israel still has WMD's ( supplied by the US), but other countries in the regio are invaded cuz ths US suspects they have WMD's. Not that there are any of those found in Iraq. And now we hear that 'perhaps' there were no weapons at all. Bush is going to start an 'indepent' commision that has to investigate if the information about those weapons was correct....the results will be published after the elections, Bush chooses the members of the commision.

[Lady Luthien]

Just a few things...yes I'm not all for Bush, but I really don't think the situation in Iraq was too similar to many other country's situations. I mean, what other countries are led by a malicious tyrant that takes everything from his people and uses it for himself and kills his own people? Perhaps there are one or two, but it's not like this is going on all over the world. Plus, the point of doing this with Iraq was to establish a model for other Middle Eastern countries to follow...Iraq has been freed and the government is in the process of being restored fairly, and then other countries can follow this example. I'm not in favor of the war because it's none of our business, but I don't see any proof that this war was fought for political interests...I mean what interests were in favor of the US? The rest of the world disagreeing with us? Soldiers dying daily? Spending millions on war preparation? I truly believe Bush went to war for the safety of the world, and to help Iraq. It still wasn't worth it, but I wouldn't say, without any proof, that this war was fought for selfish reasons. I agree that the media distorts the real plans and makes it look like Bush is doing it for the wrong reasons(i.e.clips of angry Iraqis screaming that the American government has replaced Saddam Hussein, and focusing on the deaths of American soldiers instead of the accomplishments). However, if I can see some proof that this war was fought for selfish reasons, I'm open to change my view on it.

[Pil]

Originally posted by Lady Luthien
I mean what interests were in favor of the US?

I quite seriously think that Bush and Blair wanted to gain control of Iraq because they wanted to gain control of the oil fields. I mean, the concept is understandable, wanting to secure their countrys' future and all....but i dont agree with the way things were done.

I think though to say that there was no gain for the US for going to war is maybe not true. :huh:

[Lady Luthien]

I didn't say there was absolutely no gain...I just meant I couldn't think of any. But that is a good point, perhaps he had the oil fields in mind when he made the decision to go to war, but I doubt he based his entire decision to go to war on an oil field. It may have had a small part, though. I still believe that mostly, his intentions were unselfish. Of course, like I said before, I could just be wrong. I'm just a person who assumes people are good until proven wrong. I don't like it when people (and I'm not saying anyone in this thread is) just assume that someone is selfish because theyre American, or powerful, etc, without any proof to back up their statement. Again, I'm not accusing anyone of doing that here. I just know a lot of people from other countries who do that.

[Keverzwijn]

Okidkoi, I'll go searching thru some news articles to support the things I say, But I'm not some guy that randomly says things that aren't true, I know what I'm talking about. Not that I'm saying that you're accusing me of being that guy LL, it's just neccesary to uphold some credibility in this thread.

[Steve the Great]

Originally posted by Lady Luthien
I mean, what other countries are led by a malicious tyrant that takes everything from his people and uses it for himself and kills his own people? Perhaps there are one or two, but it's not like this is going on all over the world. (...)

Thanks God, on the whole, it's true... But there're too many countries, where people die because of their government. In North Korea thousands of people have been starving becouse of the political system. In numerous countries in Africa hundreds have been dying becouse of stupid tribal wars, etc.


Plus, the point of doing this with Iraq was to establish a model for other Middle Eastern countries to follow...


Well, it's a very honorable idea... The problem is IMHO, that it wouldn't be the task of the USA (or none of any other country). That's why the United Nations were founded... The more serious problem is, that UN inadequate for these tasks in its current form... For example, in the former Yugoslavia people would be killing eachother even in these days without the intervention of the NATO (leaded by the USA)...

Well, I think it's very important for the US that the oil fields will be in 'friendly' countries... It's a pretty understable decision in some ways...

And some odd financial issues: The Iraqi infrastructure is needed to rebuild. This work will be carried out by mainly American enterprises (I've no problem with this fact), and the expenses would be covered by certain Iraqi accounts. In other (a bit cynical) words: It's a very special way to induce new orders for the American industry...

[Lady Luthien]

ok...perhaps my theory that Bush is a resonable person with honorable intentions is incorrect. Mb Bush is selfish and went to war to better the American economy. That's depressing, and unlikely. Because soldiers die every day over there, and we've spent millions on war preparations. I don't see that as a very good trade off for our the bettering of our industry...that doesn't seem logical...but perhaps Bush is illogical then. I knew everything I said good about Bush would be refuted...but that's fine, as long as it's true, and truthfully I don't know enough about it to say it's wrong...it just seems unlikely that Bush did it for the American Industries.

and if it's not our task to help other countries...we should have just left them to be ruled in tyranny? I'm not saying we shouldn't have, I'm just posing that question: does it really matter if it's our business or not if what we do helps that country?

[Lady Luthien]

Sorry to double post, but Kev...I didn't think you were some guy that randomly says things aren't true lol I know you know what you're talking about and are a very intelligent person...I just don't see Bush's intentions as selfish...but like I said, perhaps I'm wrong. I haven't been studying or involved with politics for very long...so I'm a newbie to all of this lol

[Steve the Great]

First of all, I hope I didn't offend either you or anybody else... politics is always a risky subject... ;)
I think, war preparations serve bettering the economy of a nation in certain ways too, namely the economic performance depends on 3 factors: performance of enterprises, the balance of external trade and the purchasing/investment of the government (like building roads or buying weapons)...

Of course is a great achivement that Saddam Hussein is no more the president of Iraq. To tell the truth, at this moment only the USA have the power to do such things without the help of other countries. But it's always disturbing a little bit when a strong person decides alone on the others future...
And there're - besides the humanitarian reasons - some business and/or political motives. Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq for many years and the taliban regime existed for about 2 decades...

[Keverzwijn]

Originally posted by Steve the Great
First of all, I hope I didn't offend either you or anybody else... politics is always a risky subject... ;)

No no, you didn't offended me, I'm glad that we're having this debate. And I'm glad that we can have threads that talk about more important stuff than our favourite colour or how cute Orlando is.

I'm still working on the sources that confirm what I was saying before, but it will take me a while.

[Lady Luthien]

I hope I didn't offend anyone as well...that was certainly not my intention. I was just expressing the way I feel about Bush...at the moment I'm sort of confused...I go back and forth between supporting him and opposing him. Every day I find out something new that changes my opinion of him. The only reason I brought up media distortion to foreign countries is because last Summer I went on an exchange to Germany, and half the time we argued about the war, and I heard many remarks that Bush was a tyrant trying to take over the whole world and he's doing it just for the power, without any evidence or proof to base their assumptions on except for what they saw on the news, which is a lot of times slanted and opinionated by those who give the information and taken out of context. Again, everyone here is reasonable and respectable about it...and willing to provide proof of their take on it...and that's a hard thing when you're dealing with politics lol That's why most of the time I try and stay out of it...but this time I want to learn more.

[Keverzwijn]

Well, that's a good thing Sara, it appears that one of the biggest problems in the US is that the youth just doesn't care what happens in their country.

[Steve the Great]

Yeah, politics is sometimes very interesting and exciting... :p But sometimes I have that strange feeling that politicians need people only for voting... pfbbt
And I think, the role of media is worth a discussion as well... During the war in Iraq I tried to follow as many different online sources as possible (e.g. BBC, Reuters, CNN, some Middel Eastern sources - besides the Hungarian news portals). Besides this, I was involved in online discussion about the latest news. It was pretty interesting comparing the different sources and the latest news with the older ones...

[Lady Luthien]

Yea, I mean the news can be very misleading by posting percentages and tax cuts and saying...look, Bush is cutting this, but spending money on this, and that's bad. People that only watch the news instead of researching on their own will say...yea, look at what Bush is doing, that's not right! He's spending more money on arts and libraries instead of putting the money into house vouchers for the poor! They fail to realize that these percentages mean nothing without being compared to the previous spendings of each amount of funding, how much needs to be and is invested in each fund, and the percentages of spending of OTHER presidents. Percentages are relative things and usually mean nothing by themselves when they are of a constantly changing thing. That is just an example of how the media, even the news, can twist people's views, or at least the views of those who do not do any research on their own or have no understanding of politics(which is unfortunately a great deal of people in our country). I saw it last night myself, and it's a very sad thing. I'm not saying Bush's expenditure rates are good or bad, I'm just saying they're relative to many other things, so it's unfair to post them separately and claim that they're bad only because of the way they look by themselves without any further explination. And it's not only Bush they target with these things, it's every single President. That is one of the many problems of free speech in America. Sometimes it's more important to give up a few of our precious little rights in order to be safe, or in order to get the news truthfully as it really is, but that will never happen here b/c we were supposedly founded on "equality and inalienable rights" :rolleyes:

[Steve the Great]

Ummm... I found something interesting about free speech. It's not too fresh story, but imho it's worth to read here (http://www.riprense.com/Lindorff6.htm) (it's not the primary source coz for accessing that I'd have had to registrate to the newspaper :p ) Did you hear or read something about it in those days? I'm eager to know your oppinion...

[Lady Luthien]

Well...I have mixed views on the matter. First off, I had no idea this was going on...thanks for bringing this to my attention. The reason this is happening is because George Bush is a conservative obviously, and conservatives are not as much in favor or personal rights as Democrats are...one reason I am mostly a Republican, not to say I agree with Bush. Anyway, I think it is good that the protests are being held under control. That's good that they fence them off because either they're just a plain nuisance, or they could be dangerous. That's a good point that fencing off the protestors wouldn't help because a person planning to assasinate the president would most likely be wearing a t-shirt that says "I love Bush". BUT that doesn't mean letting the protestors run free would make it any safer. What we need to do is get everyone out of the way...even the people that claim to support Bush. They should not be allowed to roam freely across the streets shouting and showing their signs first of all because it doesn't do anything(the president is not going to change his policy because he sees some maniac waving a sign saying he hates poor people), and because they can be dangerous and attempt to use violence, as many protestors are apt to do. It has always been my belief that safety is a right that should come before any other civil right. Protesting does not accomplish anything...it just makes those doing it look ignorant and stubborn. People that have proof and alternative solutions to the President's policy should have the right to present them, but not people shouting mindless criticisms at the President, OR people shouting that they love him. It causes more trouble and danger than the freedom it allots to the people.

[Keverzwijn]

A 'free speech area'....sounds like something from an 'monty python' movie. Would be hilarious if it wasn't for real. My feelings about protesting are a bit mixed. Ofc it is important to show that you care enough for the subject to actually do something. But perhaps it isn't that usefull. Well anyway, you can be more usefull by protesting than by sitting on your tookus at home, mumbling about how bad it all is. I went protesting on the day that the war against Iraq started btw.

[Lady Luthien]

My theorie is: you have to be intelligent in the first place to question the President's actions. If you're disagreeing but have no reason or idea what you're talking about, no offense, but your views don't really matter. If you are intelligent, then perhaps if you really care and have proof of your opinion of what the President is doing wrong, than you can get yourself involved in politics and find a way to present your views where they can actually be listened to, in a fair and useful way. Sometimes that can be through protesting, and other times, it can be done by simply expressing your opinion in an educated and safe way. It's good for the President to know what his people are thinking, but there should be some restrictions involved reguarding safety and tact. Btw...when I said protesting was not useful, I only meant protesting by those who don't know what they're talking about...I've certainly protested before, but I had a reason, and I wasn't out of control.
Btw...that's cool you went on an anti-war march, Kev! I want to go on one lol I'm not entirely against Bush, but I'm certainly against his foreign policy. Btw...are you gunna sign onto im?? :grin: Haven't talked to you in forever :(

[Keverzwijn]

i know sweets, but it was getting late in my timezone. Don't worry, the weekend is near, I'll have time for you then.:)

[Lady Luthien]

yay veryhappy And today is Friday! :whoohoo:

[Bregalad]

I'm fine with Bush, but i really dislike the way he alienated many other countries just to get his war on Iraq... especially with the hoo-ha on the weapons of mass destruction (of which NOTHING has been found).

[Eledhwen]

Politics is a risky business to be in and to discuss. But you guys have raised some very good points here.

My problems with Bush are many. But in terms of the *war* with Iraq, I think that had another entity (nation, coalition) taken up arms against Iraq in the same manner - we would have a very situation in the world today. I think we would be thinking "invasion" and not "liberation", depending of course, on which governments backed the action.

I am completely against Saddam Hussein and his tyranny. But it seems to me that something could have been done without this business of the WMDs. Perhaps the Bush administration really did get the wrong information, as is now being reported. This makes me extremely uncomfortable with decisions they will make going forward for their own national security and that of the world. It isn't something I completely believe either. To mount a massive offensive against another nation is a huge decision - you would want the very best information (and they do have the technology). Your logistics would be the very best. It's irresponsible to send your fighting men and women into a questionable situation, so you would want to base your decision on the best stats and evidence you could muster.

Another thing that bothers me is that real democracy is an organic process. For a society to be truly democratic, it has to evolve a democracy. This is a society based on different laws and rhetoric than than the Western world. They simply cannot drop that and become democratic because someone else says so. And democracy being brought to an historically non-democratic nation with tanks and bombs? I have some difficulty with that.

I also think some of the national security policy is trampling basic personal and constitutional rights of many people across North America. I work for an government agency that exists to uphold these rights. Freedom of speech, rights to personal privacy, constitutional protections are what our democratic societies are based on. And they are not perfect. But aren't they much better than the alternative? The tradeoff between constitutional rights and national security is an extremely grey area. And there are very few citizens who are fully informed of the long-term repercussions for the trade. Safety is one thing, control is another.

I have a lot of respect for what you are doing Luthi - and everyone! Be informed. Research as much as you can. The power of tomorrow is in your hands and so much the better if you are educated about your decisions! Read all perspectives as well - it's very useful to have all points of view. There are some good articles around that I'll try to find and post here.

Politics .. the never-ending story...

[Steve the Great]

Ummm... There's a question about national security policiy I always wanted to ask... What kind of feelings have people in the USA about their security? Do they feel themselves really being in danger?
I found a quite odd story about this issue here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040206/ap_on_en_mo/grammys_cuban_musicians_1).

[Keverzwijn]

That's an odd story indeed, has anyone heard about the cuban guys who converted their car into a boat and tried to get across the sea to America (twas in the news last week)? But they got arrested before they got there, the poor lads.

EDIT, I found the article and pics! here you go, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-ccarboat04feb04,0,5152301.story?coll=sfla-news-miami

[Lady Luthien]

Those are some great points, Eledhwen, and thank's for the article, Steve :thumbs:
Unless I'm missing something, that's really random that the President is not allowing the Cubans to come to the Grammys. I mean, what have they done in the past 50 years for him to think they are a danger? It's sort of ironic b/c I just watched a movie about Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis in my government class.
But about the people trying to illegally immigrate to the United States, I don't really think it was unfair for the United States to send them back. I mean they knew they were breaking the law by trying to come over here without registering legally, and I don't see why they couldn't have tried to do that instead of just sneaking over here. I would assume that the reason their request was denied when they tried to register legally was because of the fact that they had tried to sneak over here illegally before hand. How is it in other countries though? Can just anyone sail on over without having to register legally? I don't see what we did as unfair. If the United States had rejected their attempt to register legally before they had reason not to trust them, that would certainly be unfair. Perhaps there is a situation with the United States and Cuba going on right now that I am missing? I've just been concentrating on the war at the moment, but I guess some other things have been going on, too.

[Steve the Great]

Originally posted by Lady Luthien
... I just watched a movie about Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis in my government class...

That was a very frightful period for the whole world... I saw some documentries and read articles about those days. Everywhere in the world (I mean in the countries belonging to NATO and the former Warsaw Pact ) prepared armies to the new war...

[Eledhwen]

I think the Cuban missile crisis is a good example of the world coming to the "brink". As for the Cubans and the Grammys - it's not as random as it sounds. There have been a few cases of it. There was an Indian writer from Canada who was not allowed entry into the U.S. - Rohinton Mistry - he's a best-selling author who was going on a book tour. As far as I know we're not a terrorist country. ;) There was another artist - I believe he was Canadian - who was denied entry into the US.

I'm not an American, so I can't speak for them, but I have a lot of friends and family living across the border. Most of them do not seem to feel that their personal safety is threatened on a daily basis, but they do feel fear in large situations like New Year's Eve or a public speaking event with hundreds or thousands of people. Luthi, how do you feel?

That was a really interesting story about the guys in the car-boat. That kind of thing has been happening for years and years - refugees from islands like Haiti or Cuba trying desperate things to get to America. Do you remember the "Elian" case? We (in Canada) had a guy hide in the wheel wells of an airplane to get here. He fell out, half-frozen, on the tarmac when the plane landed. They treated him and returned him home on the next flight. Poor guy!

But they can't accept people like that. Especially with the publicity. Makes it look like it's ok to do crazy things instead of going the normal route. I feel for them though, b/c most of them are driven by desperation...

[Lady Luthien]

Yes, I think it's sad too, but if we accepted all those who did that, it could become chaotic.
And I really don't feel threatened, but the reason is not b/c the world isn't dangerous, it is because our national security is so high. I don't think we have to worry about rights being trampled and so on. I think that, for safety, being protected is a greater right than the right of not having your bags checked at an airport. If they weren't checked, then something like 9-11 could easily happen again.I think it's selfish to place more importance on and complain about violation of personal privacy over an issue involving national safety, but that's just my opinion. Yes, sometimes it can become out of hand, but having things checked in public places is not that big a deal. It's that or not be protected.

[Eledhwen]

You are right about this hon. But this is not invasion of your personal privacy (unless they hold up your underwear or something :p ). These airport measures are necessary. And not really that intrusive.

What IS intrusive is fingerprinting me because I am of Indian descent and I have a brown face that fits a certain racial profile. Security guards and airport personnel are not psychologists. They are not professionals in the area of human behaviour. They may know a thing or two, but they cannot expertly pick out a terrorist from regular traveller.

Think about this for a sec. I have to travel to LA at the end of the month - for a PARTY. I have a higher than usual chance of fitting a certain racial profile. I can be detained. I can be fingerprinted. I am a Canadian CITIZEN of more than 30 years, with no criminal record whatsoever. BUT, if I got a speeding ticket in Washington 15 years ago, it will be enough. I will not be taking so much as a nail file with me. I'm checking my clothes to be sure there's nothing with an edge or a point. I will be extremely careful about how I dress, walk and speak in the airport.

Why should I be under that kind of pressure to travel? Why should the US government have my fingerprints on file? Or detain me, take my information and make a file on me? This is intrusive. And it can lead to abuses of my personal information by the government. That's a real invasion of privacy. There's more to it, of course. But this is where it starts.

If I go to LA and win, say, the Glamdring sword we're giving away. Do you think I can return to the airport with it?

Searching my luggage - no probs man, search away. But there are deeper levels to it. Scary levels - esp for someone like me...

[Lady Luthien]

Yea that's a good point. Racial profiling is just a fancy word for discrimination, and it's unfair and I don't believe in it. I'm sorry that's the case with you, Eledhwen. I hope it won't always be this hard for you to travel. But it seems like we can check bags without racial profiling becoming necessary. I mean whether someone is white or Indian or Afghan, etc, does not determine what they will have inside their bag. I don't understand why we cannot just check the bags and if there isn't a gun or weapon of mass destruction or knife or something, just let them go. That IS out of hand, and intrusive. It should be able to be fixed easily, but because some angry American always has a problem with the way something is changed, or claims it is somehow controversial not to discriminate, it unfortunately will be hard to do so. It is possible to be safe with out discrimination, and I hope that will become possible in the near future. These sort of issues really make me want to become a lawyer lol

[Steve the Great]

Yeah, nowdays the authorities of US have been collecting lots of fingerprints and photos. But imho it's not really useful in order to prevent any terrorist attack (unless they use it to track more easily the 'suspicious' people, which is a really scary scenario)
And there're an another aspect of this info-gathering. As far as I know, every citizens whose country is in the obligatory visa system (like my country, Hungary) will be fingerprinted and and a photo will be taken of her/him.
Firstly the Embassy of USA gives the visa uneasily (they check the applicant very carefully - which is pretty understandable, no problem), but after that these passangers are treated as a potential criminal (photo, fingerprints) because of their nationality... :(
And Hungarians are none the less on this 'black-list' (which is made against terrorism), that Hungary is a member of the NATO (sent some soldiers to Afghanistan), it was among the few countries that undersigned a supporting declaration in the begining of the war in Iraq and also sent a few dozen soldiers to Iraq after the war...

[Fëalossë]

From the other perspective of what Eledhwen was saying; I went to Mexico two years ago for a week, which, of course, meant crossing through the US to get there. I was told to either have a passport or photo i.d. and a birth certificate, or they wouldn't let me into America. Amazingly, I forgot my birth certificate, and they let me, a caucasian, into the U.S. with only a learner's license, which could easily have been faked, as they barely glanced at it. Coming back into the U.S. from Mexico, they only asked for our citizenship, looked into the van, and let us through. As relieved as that made me, it also makes me wonder...

[Lady Luthien]

This is slightly off-topic, but because most people who post here are probably somewhat interested in politics, I'm doing my Senior speech on media distortion in politcs, and if anyone has any stories, or interesting articles or opinions on that matter, that would be wonderful if you could e-mail me or post them here...b/c I'm trying to figure out how to narrow down my topic, as it's pretty broad. I'm trying to target some specific issues that I can discuss, and any help would be great...thanks :grin:

[Eomund]

what kind of politics, war, peace, some contracts, etc.

[Lady Luthien]

any kind, actually...I'm not sure...and that's why I'm trying to narrow it down. I know I'm going to target the current election, but it won't all be on that. It's mostly about the news and the media and how they can distort what's really going on, whether it be war, or domestic affairs.

[Eomund]

oh, anyway nothing about US.

[Lady Luthien]

oh, and one more question to raise to people not from the US, which is basically everyone in this thread but me lol : Do you feel the news that you get is slanted or distorted? In other words: do you believe most everything your hear through the news, or do you have to do further research yourself in order to be sastisfied that the information you have is truthful and unslanted? It would be good for me to compare our system to that of other nations.

[Eomund]

we have i think slanted but im not really sure...

[Keverzwijn]

Sorry to be the dumb foreign boy here, but what does 'slanted mean'?

[Steve the Great]

Wow... it's very exciting subject for your speech, LL... :thumbs:
Well, IMHO elections are always an excellent research field for those who would like to study the role (and/or distortion) of the media... :)
Concerning the war in Iraq there're are also many interesting and typical stories. For example: presentation in the media of the question of WMDs, the attitude of media towards (mainly) the opposing countries (eg. France, Germany) before/during/after the war or the story of Jessica Lynch. I think, these are definitely worth doing research about... (sp?)

I usually try to check as many sources as I can, but sometimes it makes me quite confused... Sometimes different sources show us so different opinions that it's very hard to decied which might have more truth... :elfeek:

[Keverzwijn]

I think you will have to really really narrow it down, cuz you could get lost in all the information in no time. Perhaps you could use the Jessica Lynch story. It's just a detail of the whole story, but you'll be able to make a point that, at the same time, tells something about the whole thing of misleading media.

[Lady Luthien]

Yes, I know I'll definately have to narrow it down...I'm searching for specific issues to do that. Thanks for your suggestion on the Jessica Lynch story...I'll definately look into that ;)

[Steve the Great]

There are a lot of online documents about this story (click (http://www.google.co.hu/search?q=%22Jessica+Lynch%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=hu&btnG=Google+keres%C3%A9s&meta=)) lol
Good luck! :grin:

[Lady Luthien]

thanks, Steve! Wow...that is a lot! :p

[Eomund]

thats a lot i saw but I didnt even n othat there is google with every domain...


Eomund :king:

[Steve the Great]

Yep, there're many 'nationalised' versions of Google... It helps a lot when you want to search documents only e.g. in Hungarian... :grin:

I'm very curious about your thoughts in this subject (or any other that you'll choose), Lady Luthien
I think, it'd be very edifying if you post here the 'abstract ' of your study... ;)

[Lady Luthien]

ok....will do ;) I'm in the early stages of researching, and just looking for specific cases to display distortion by news programs...the hard part will be writing the thing and figuring out how to propose a solution to that...I mean how do you solve news distortion?? :p I hope I can think of something to say, b/c that's a mandatory part of my speech.

[Eledhwen]

Whoa ... good luck solving that one hon! ;) One *solution* that has come to pass is the availability of news from different places. Different perspectives of the story allowing you to reflect on what your media is telling you. I guess this is mainly due to things like the Internet and satellite TV.

Not sure if this is an actual solution b/c it's still only available to those who care to look it up. But at least it is available.

Hard to solve a country's media distortion from within b/c govt has so much say... But if anyone can figure this out - I'm positive you can!! Great topic btw :thumbs: ... would really love to read your abstract too...

:read: :read: :read: research ... research ... research :read: :read: :read:

[Bonos-Girl]

i don't think there is a solution...i mean...whatever country it is the majoroty of people will find news by tv or radio and whether it's a government run media service or not there will be government intervention involved...

[Lady Luthien]

yes, there are plenty of solutions. Nothing can solve it entirely, but there are things we can do to make it better. Simply not allow news stations to lie through their teeth. The American public has a right to get it's news unslanted and truthfully, and that right is greater than the right to free speech, imo. We just need to separate news from sensationalized stories who's main goal is to make money for the person writing them. People should be able to express their opinions, but not on the news. If a newscaster is leaving something out, or telling a one-sided story, at least have the decency to say so, so that we know what we're hearing isn't true. Free speech should not mean that journalists should have the right to manipulate our opinions. Legislation can be passed so that guidelines can be set up, just like guidelines for any other thing in our country are set up. The more people that realize their news is slanted, the less likely people will be to listen to it at all...and then where will all their precious money be going? Believe me, in this day and age, the truth will sell. ;)

[Steve the Great]

Umm... I think, it's quite hard to decide which news is ture and which was distorted... :huh: As far as I could follow, during the war in Iraq there were more typesof newscasters with different 'policy' (uhh... sorry, didn't find more approporiate term). I mean certain newscasters (e.g. ABC News and Foxnews if I not mistake) totally stood up for the President and the War without any critics, they were the first who announced (false) WMD-findings, etc. Other newscasters were more 'discreet' and correct (but they also stood up for the President, ofc.)
So here is my question: Which newscaster (or type of newscaster) would you choose in such a complicated situation? :p

[Lady Luthien]

none of them. I seriously don't watch the news much anymore...and when I do, I look at both sides. I shouldn't have to do that. I should just be told the story straight up, as it really was, which is the point of the news. Mb there's no way to stop people from lying, but if they are lying, the public should be warned so they won't fall into the traps they set for us. If they're lying, it shouldn't be broadcast as the truth, or the "real facts". And there is a way to determine whether what they say is true or not...look at other sources...put them together and draw conclusions. The reporters have to get their slanted stories from facts...mb they should have someone to look over their drafts...someone who's goal isn't to impress the public, but someone dedicated to broadcasting the truth, and not to using the public's laziness as a tool to make money. I'd do it. I don't think it should be left up to an individual to do the story from their point of view...mb if there was a team, and their stories had to be submitted to someone who actually knows the facts, that works outside of the news company and isn't worried about money or reputation, and can make sure they don't twist them, distortion would be less common. Or mb I'm just being an optimist. It seems like there should be able to be some reform, though.

[Steve the Great]

No, I don't think you're an optimist... I think you're simply an idealist... :naughty: (j/k)
But ofc. you're totally right: this way of information would be a really great achivement of modern mass media...
IMHO internet is the best media for those people (like you and many others) who want to find the truth behind the news. However, it's not an easy job coz there're so many different sources. I think, it's worth looking for 'independent' news portals, like
AlterNet.org (http://www.alternet.org/) that collect and evaluate stories. (But to tell the truth, it depends on your 'faith' to belive that it's really an independent source :huh: )

[Lady Luthien]

Well...now someone else has the same topic as me so now I might have to change it. What a waste of time.

[Keverzwijn]

Bummer, I still hope you can go on with this subject,it would be so cool.

[Beleg Strongbow]

I have also visited the Alternet.org (http://www.alternet.org) site. Very enlightening. There are plenty of others out there to check out as well to try and get to the bottom of the real truth about what the Bush Administration is up to. Here are just a few....

Moveon.org - Democracy in action (http://www.moveon.org/front/)

In These Times (http://www.inthesetimes.com/)

Antiwar (http://www.antiwar.com)

MediaChannel.org - A Global Network of More Than 1,000 Media Issues Groups (http://www.mediachannel.org/)

Michael Moore's Site (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

although, Michael's site has been so busy, it isn't always quite as up to date as some of the others are though.

and last, but not least....BuzzFlash!! (http://buzzflash.com/) which locates breaking news items as they happen.

As an Australian, I find it quite disturbing that the finger of the WhiteHouse Administration is stretching to all points of the globe setting up American bases in every country.

I believe that americans are decent, well=-meaning people, but they are blinded to the rest of the world's problems by an administration that would have them believe that, if it isn't american, or follow american ideals, then it must be evil. Spreading that sort of paranoia amongst the good people of America is evil in itself, and the Bush administration is guilty of it in every respect. Anyway, that's from my perspective. As long as we remain a democracy between our countries, then we'll never lose the ability to criticize our heads of state, parliaments, etc. When we start to lose that freedom, then we know we're in big trub...

[Catz]

i tend to agree...unfortunately Americans are fed a certain paternalism along with patriotism............while im not saying that any other country is perfect, its unfortunate that many americans only see the rest of the world as something "out there" that doesnt affect them............it is i guess the inevitable consequence of being the richest country in the world.
and im not for a moment saying that ALL americans are this way, but in most other countries youll find a much higher proportion of the population has travelled and thus has first hand experience of other cultures and ways of looking at things
and this parochialism is what Mr Bush appears to me to be manipulating...........and what disturbs me is that hell happily use the deaths of innocent people to further his own agenda....using the emotional impact to push thru his actions
:catz:

[Melian]

As Sam said, "Let us be rid of him (it)". As an American I must confess to a certain fatalism about the whole political system. No matter what they say, it all comes down to big money. I know that's a big cinical, and I know that there are some good people out there, but that's how I see the bottom line (pun intended).

[Beleg Strongbow]

Just been reading more stuff today about Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheyney. The amount of impeachable offenses that this administration has committed is quite astounding. The other thing that has really irked me is that they finally said that they would allow the National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission on the proviso that the President and the Vice President didn't have to publicly testify and also that they would appear together. It just goes to show that Cheyney is really pulling 'Dubya's' strings. Also, 10 more marines lost their lives on Sunday while fighting with militant shi'ites in Iraq. America needs to pull its troops out and let the United Nations get in there and start working to create a better Iraq. As long as the US is occupying Iraq, they'll always be seen as a military occupation and not liberators.

[Catz]

yeah well, one mans liberation is anothers occupation..........it irritates me that the US decides who requires "liberation"
and ofc Bush is a figurehead............thats what presidents are, but i think it goes deeper than Cheyney
:catz:

[Amithrellas]

I wish I could say that I just had a problem with Geo W. and his policies, but the problem is much bigger and therefore scarier. My hubby and I were looking at moving to NZ for a while Catz, just because of that.
America seems to have little to no respect for the environment or the world around the US in general. The UN is denigrated unless it serves US policies. The "news" tends to be entertainment only; focussed on one or two bits of local, prurient trash that are droned on about ad infinitum. In politics there seems only two positions -- the right-wing conservatives and the far-right fanatics. Anything else is labeled anti-patriotic.
They seem to speak about the occupation of Iraq with a whole different set of vocabulary -- as if that changes the reality of it. The US has invaded another country with troops, bombs, etc. How can it be to the Iraqis betterment if we don't understand them or their needs? Who conducts such an action without a bloody good idea about contingencies (infra-structure, security, self-determination) for the general population affected?

[Eledhwen]

I don't think this administration ever had the Iraqi people in mind. It will take years to bring stability to the country and can the government afford to keep the army there for years? Already there is fighting among different factions. My own belief is that once the American military is gone, the situation will disintegrate into civil war. And then, who will help them?

Another frightening question: Is this the administration that will continue to run the US for another 4 years?? :mmmm:

Here's another site to check out - some great information on how Bush policies play out: Common Dreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/)

[Beleg Strongbow]

yep...checked that site out. It seems that the majority of people feel the same way. It's also amazing that the press has not covered a lot of the stuff that matters until the run up to the election. I'm still trying to work that one out!

[Catz]

well lets be honest..........who controls the media?
we can talk all we like about freedon of the press, but if all the press is interested in is money, then theyre NOT gonna rock the boat are they?
he who pays the piper calls the tune
:catz:

[Saruman]

There really needs to be an American equivalent of Private Eye magasine. If you haven't read Private Eye, I reccomend it. There are 'teachings from Saint Tony', among other hilarious things. lol

One thing that quite shocked me was when I was talking to someone (presumably American, though she did not specify) on another board about the issues, and I brought up the death of innocent civilians at Bush's hand, and she (who shall remain nameless) simply said, 'you don't get it, do you? These people are animals. We can't negotiate with them without using violence.' I didn't even dignify that with a reply.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Sounds like a typical response you would get from a NeoCon. It's unfortunate displays of racism like this that turns humans back in on themselves.

[Catz]

yeah, and thats why Bushs rhetoric bothers me...that "us and them" thing, that objectifies the "other" and turns them into less than "us"
makes my flesh creep to be honest
patriotism is one thing, but to assume that anyone who isnt for us, is against us is scary in a country with the resources of the states
:catz:

[Eledhwen]

It's even more bothersome because it's a deliberate, carefully scripted language. And it becomes adopted by people like this person that Saruman encountered. It leaves no room for the aggression to be criticized b/c the logic is: "we" are good and "they" are evil - how can you possibly side with "them"? ... So, if you are critical, you automatically become one of "them".

Yikes. And as for that nameless person. Weren't Augusto Pinochet and the men in his regime in Chile animals? The American government supported him (and many more like him). Just as they, at one time, supported the Mujahideen wariors in Afghanistan. Glad you didn't reply Saruman - it would have been a waste of your precious time.

[Lady Luthien]

Perhaps it's true that Americans are taught that their country is the best. But does that mean we always believe what we're taught? Also I think it's a little too general to be saying "Americans this, Americans that"...I mean we're all extremely different, so you can't really classify an entire nation by something that a few people did, or that our government did. Yes we elect our president, but to a certain extent and due to the development of political parties, the elections are somewhat rigged.
Also...I certainly don't consider the rest of the world as just "out there." I am probably the least patriotic American in America...I have visited Europe only once(and attended classes there) to know that I'd rather live there than here. And I don't think Democracy is always the best government, it obviously depends on the country you're talking about.
And anyway, I still think Bush used 9-11 as an excuse to take over the government of Iraq. He wanted to take over a non-democratic nation from the start, and the terrorist attack gave him the tools he needed to fake connections between Alkida(sp?) and Iraq, and Iraq and Bin Laden, etc. He also completely assumed that Iraq had WMD with no proof, except that they had gone against some UN regulation. Funny how we accuse them of not cooperating with the UN and then we go off and completely ignore the UN's decision not to invade Iraq. So many things the US does are extremely hypocritical. (not to mention demanding a nation to disarm when we ourselves are not disarmed) Not all Americans live in their own little world. We may not understand everything outside of our country, but who does? And I certainly make an effort to.

[Lady Galadriel]

Wow! I did not even know this thread existed. First off, I am an American. I do not support Bush but then I guess I should not complain since I did not vote in the last election. Not that it would have mattered because his opposition won in my state anyway. However, I definitely have a date with the poll in November of this year.

I would just like to say that many Americans were opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (including me). Americans might seem as though they supported Bush in this but it was primarily because there was a big debate about supporting the troops. Everytime there was an anti-war protest, people get upset because they say its not good for the morale of the troops if they see this going on at home. Remember, the entire world was against this invasion and in America there was a united cry to support our troops. Personally, after the war began my biggest fear was for the persons who were sure to die rather than the invasion itself. The deaths impacted my emotions so much that I barely watched the news.

I dont think people outside the US understood the debates, rumors, arguments, etc. that were instigated by this war. Many Americans felt that Bush invaded Iraq for oil, money, revenge, you name it, and I have heard it. Personally I feel that the entire Iraq affair is a quagmire that Bush cannot escape. There are so many persons who have died since the war "supposedly" ended. I get so furious with him because of all the needless deaths that have occurred because of their "false" information. Now America (the soldiers) is trapped in Iraq and Americans have to bear the expense of Bush's rash and unjust decision.

By the way, Americans do not live in a bubble. There might be some among us who are arrogant and believe America to be superior but I do not believe its the majority. There are too many things that occur here for people to feel that way: church scandals, school violence, indecent exposure on tv, gay marriages, etc.

As to Dr. Rice upcoming testimony, I have seen her interviewed numerous times and she knows how to handle herself. Like I jokingly told my friend the other day, perhaps its a ruse for the crooks (like John Kerry labeled them lol ) to evade testifying. If Dr. Rice does not know anything, what can she testify to. However, I can see that she is a Bush loyalist.

[Catz]

i totally see where you are coming from LG and LL.
thats really my point tho..................that it is disturbing that a person with so little respect for his OWN people, can prate on about the rights of others, whilst happily abusing those rights, and then hide behind the rhetorical shield of "patriotism"
Mr Bush is the president of the US............not the world, in spite of what he seems to believe
:catz:

[Beleg Strongbow]

Begging your pardon to both Lady Luthien and her Grandmother Lady Galadriel if you took offense at my comment about Americans being blinded by administration propaganda. Perhaps a bit of a generalization there. I maybe should have included the word 'some'.
Unfortunately, for the most part, the sound and pictures that we get over here and pretty much anywhere in the world shows us that Americans seem quite insular; not wanting to really understand any other culture than their own, and I'm always afraid that this is purely generated by conservative politics in the U.S. that believes that their way is the right way. The other scary side to this is that our current Prime Minister John Howard is walking the same road with Bush and refuses to be gainsaid on any point that the President of the U.S. makes. It just goes to show that he expects us to run this Wartime gauntlet with them, when to be honest, I'd rather not.

I do understand that there are many Americans who are totally against the current 'regime'. Also, I pray that number grows, as I have just read some very frightening news today. Back in November of 2003, General Tommy Franks said that if there was another terrorist attack prior to November 2004, there would be a suspension of the U.S. constitution and the installation of a military Government. This would occur without seeking approval from Congress as it would constitute a 'State of Emergency'. His statement was this:

"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event," Is this some careless, throw-away comment? I think not. The Antiterrorism gurus have already predicted that the United States are looking down the barrel of another attack at the very time that suits Al Qaeda the most - pre-election time. We saw what happened in Spain...

I AM disturbed that the General speaks for "the population". I can't imagine all Americans wanting to throw the constitution out. I also can't imagine Americans wanting to live under military rule. The transition to an Orwellian culture would be too short a journey.

Just on a personal note, the other thing that makes me a little nervous about this is that I'm flying to Bali in October...:elfeek:

[Catz]

lol i think youll get more offence from the grandmother crack sweety ;)
yeah im not American bashing at all..............i DO realise that there are many americans opposed to all of this..............my question is, why dont we ever hear from them out in the bigger world?
the answer is that what media leaves the states is very carefully stage managed............spin happens on an international level too
and it disturbs me that the REAL and genuine concerns of many of his OWN people are reduced to a couple of soundbytes on ABC world news, in order that the nation "present a unified front"
a little close to censorship for my liking
and the truth is that polititians like Mr Bush, would happily see the american people be as insular as possible.........they dont want you taking note of what the rest of the world is up to, cos then you wouldnt see just how expedient US Foreign policy is...todays friend is tomorrows brutal terrorist...and youd be so blinded by "patriotism" in its worst sense, that you wouldnt care............and no, i DONT think that the US is alone in this..............far from it in fact
Mr Bush is the harbinger to many in other nations, of American imperialism. there are more ways to take over a country than just to march in with armies..................making them dependant on you for military support is a good way
:catz:

[Lady Galadriel]

Gosh, now you guys are going to make me live on this thread.

Begging your pardon to both Lady Luthien and her Grandmother Lady Galadriel if you took offense at my comment about Americans being blinded by administration propaganda.

Nah, no offense taken. You would be surprised to walk down the streets of NY City and hear the things that people "openly" state against this administration. People with mics and crowds listening to them. The thing is, there are lots of things that occur here that the news do not report. I have always heard that the media is owned by a certain influential group and I think Americans know that too.

Unfortunately, for the most part, the sound and pictures that we get over here and pretty much anywhere in the world shows us that Americans seem quite insular; not wanting to really understand any other culture than their own, and I'm always afraid that this is purely generated by conservative politics in the U.S.

Perhaps, that view was deduced from the political behavior of the "supposed" leaders of our country. The thing is, there are so many cultures that live here that it is hard to believe that we are seen that way. In NYC alone there is such a diversity of cultures and peoples that actually retain their culture or customs. We learn a lot from these individuals. I have friends from Russia, Palestine, Korea, Italy, Haiti, Antigua, Jamaica, The Philippine, China, Ireland, England, India and other places. The thing is, you visit their neighborhood in NYC and its like a smaller version of their country. But I understand how it would look to outside people. For example, during the war we got the news from the American viewpoint whereas the rest of the world probably got the news from the world viewpoint.

Back in November of 2003, General Tommy Franks said that if there was another terrorist attack prior to November 2004, there would be a suspension of the U.S. constitution and the installation of a military Government. This would occur without seeking approval from Congress as it would constitute a 'State of Emergency'. His statement was this:

Quote:
"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event,"

Is this some careless, throw-away comment? I think not. The Antiterrorism gurus have already predicted that the United States are looking down the barrel of another attack at the very time that suits Al Qaeda the most - pre-election time. We saw what happened in Spain...

Well, may god be with us here in America. There have been so many alerts that its now a regular thing for us. Because I live in NYC, I always see the military guarding "points of interest." But it is so commonplace now that they blend into the background. As to the comment that Franks made, you are right. It probably has some truth to it considering that they overrode Congress in the Iraq issue.

I can't imagine all Americans wanting to throw the constitution out. I also can't imagine Americans wanting to live under military rule.

I certainly cant either. Heck, Americans were already in an uproar over the invasion of privacy by the FBI under the guise of being proactively sifting out terrorism. I remember 9/11 well. It took me 7 hours to get home because the entire city was shut down. I mean, what still astonishes me even to today is that the building fell. We saw it from our office and never imagined it would fall. ***pinches self*** unbelievable. The thing is, we saw the hole in the building but we did not think it was that serious. Most of the office was in conference when we heard the roar. Unbelievable.

Just on a personal note, the other thing that makes me a little nervous about this is that I'm flying to Bali in October...

Have some faith. Its going to be fine.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Gee, thanks LG!! I was really worried that Catz was right and that you wouldn't like being called Grandma Galadriel! lol

[Catz]

heheh nice to know i can still worry ya sweety ;)
:catz:

[Beleg Strongbow]

yes dear...you're a constant worry to me! lol

[Catz]

you have NO idea how reassuring that is to me sweetypie ;) lol
:catz:

[Lady Luthien]

Beleg: Your quote from the General that you posted is something I had never seen before...and yes, it is important...and frightening. We have rumors of drafts and compulsory military service floating around over here and it's making me very nervous. It's rediculous to demand military service for those who don't even support the war in Iraq. Yes, it would help us to have a greater respect for the military, but at the same time it would make our military much less efficient to have a bunch of little girls and clueless people running around in there messing everything up. And to give even more legitimacy to the General's quote, Mr. Bush is proposing to make an amendment to the Constitution banning Gay Marriage...so what the General said is unfortunately already happening, it seems. And btw, no worries, I wasn't offended. What you say of us is mostly true, and that seems to be the view a lot of people I know from other nations have of us, and for good reason. Mostly, as Catz said, because of our rediculous media which spins everything out of proportion.

[Gil Galad]

You know i really think there is something much more sinister then oil or even a war on terrorism behind all this trouble, or atleast something very sinister will result from it all. and that quote that beleg gave is very likely to happen

[Beleg Strongbow]

I can tell you Gil...it scared the Dickens outta me! I live all the way over here in Australia and to read stuff like that, make the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

[Eledhwen]

Beleg, can you imagine if you were a neighbour like we are? It's pretty scary stuff. I don't think it was a throwaway comment either, more like a little preview. I could easily see the administration doing something like that... *brr-rr-rrr*

The good news is that they couldn't do that in Canada. We only have 6 soldiers. ... OK, that's not nice. We have about 6000, but we only have 6 guns... lol

(to any Cdn soldier friends out there ... I'm totally joking ... :loveyou: you guys)

[Catz]

mmmm well all i can say is that from what ive seen in the media recently, Mr Bushs stance seems to have brought all the closet weirdos and racists out of their hidey holes..............there was one article that was mentioned in the paper here yesterday, in which it was seriously said that it was better that many innocent Iraqui citizens should die than one US soldier, and that the US should march in with the full force of its army........for the Iraquis "own good".......the idea of the US having some god given right to decide what is right for another nation is what scares me
:catz:

[Eledhwen]

Too true. It is especially scary b/c of the language he's been using about who is "right" and who is "wrong" and who has "God" on their side. It made me think of a speech before the Crusades. And considering the part of the world we're talking about, thinking of the Crusade-like language makes me nauseous. I'm with Gil - there a level of sinister here that goes pretty deep.. :mmmm:

[Beleg Strongbow]

Just got this report from the Australian Press today from "The Australian" funnily enough. here is the reason that people in the Middle East hate the Americans...

Iraqi 'beaten to death' by US troops

April 14, 2004
AN Iraqi has died of his wounds after US troops beat him with truncheons because he refused to remove a picture of wanted Shiite Muslim leader Moqtada Sadr from his car, police said today.

The motorist was stopped late yesterday by US troops conducting search operations on a street in the centre of the central city of Kut, Lieutenant Mohamad Abdel Abbas said.

After the man refused to remove Sadr's picture from his car, the soldiers forced him out of the vehicle and started beating him with truncheons, he said.

US troops also detained from the same area five men wearing black pants and shirts, the usual attire of Sadr's Mehdi Army militiamen and followers.

Qassem Hassan, the director of Kut general hospital, identified the man as Salem Hassan, a resident of a Kut suburb.

He said the man had died of wounds sustained in the beating.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but if I was trying to win "Hearts & Minds" after invading a foreign country, I don't think that I would be doing it that way. I wonder how Americans would feel if their country was invaded and had their front doors broken down and their families taken and detained in prison for no reason. The whole thing stinks. The lies that are being perpetrated by this criminal administration on the American people is now beyond all reason. Also, I have just read that Bush and Ariel Sharon have shook hands on a deal of "No right of return" for the Palestinians! Where will it all end?

Bush announced to his public that when he was elected that he would bring dignity & honour back to the White House. I know of no other president (including Clinton) that has brought so much shame and secrecy with an administration. I'm sure that, in the future, our children will look back on all of this and be disgusted with this period of history, that brought shame, embarrassment and dishonour.

[Catz]

one of the things that Mr Bush is conveniently forgetting is that terrorists dont HAVE a nationality, or a race.......look at Oklahoma..........the all american boy
you cant decide who is or is not a terrorist by their race or the clothes they wear or thier religion...........its just not that simple, much tho he and other like him would like people to believe it
and the scary thing is that the definitions of "other" and therefore suspect, get wider and wider...........how long before its you or me?
:catz:

[Gil Galad]

I know it is all geting very scary, and i really dont like the way its trying to be depicted in "black and white" "right and wrong" its real life there is some degree right and wrong in almost all actions, no matter how good or evil they seem on the surface.

it reminds me allot of 1970's Northern Ireland, with internment(the right of arrest and jail people without crime or trial) brutality from the very ones who are claiming to be protecting you etc.

I realy get annoyed when i see those racist pieces of sh!t running there mouths and claiming ideology over others for things as petty as a different nationality or things as stupid as skin colour or religion

[Eledhwen]

Easy Gil... (although I agree) *rubs Gil's back*

Also, I have just read that Bush and Ariel Sharon have shook hands on a deal of "No right of return" for the Palestinians! Where will it all end?

Oh Beleg, I can't even go there... *sigh*. I try to understand that conflict from both sides, but having researched the history ... how much must the Palestinians give up? I used to be influenced by the media slant on the "Palestinian terrorists" to think that Israel was in the right. But after researching the human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians ... children ... *more sighs* What is worse about this conflict is that you cannot be critical here - well you can, but you're quickly labelled "anti-Semitic". I'm not condoning the violence on the Palestinian side either, but it is a very desperate situation and the Israelis do have the power. I think if we were looking at this situation in some other country, mightn't it be frighteningly similar to apartheid? ... But to bring this back to Bush ... I wasn't surprised by that move. Sadly, not at all.

That story about the Iraqi man is also frightening. But I wonder what happened there? I have friends and family who serve in the military, so I've heard stories about how easy it is to go ballistic, but also how disciplined they try to remain and how calmly they try to deal with these things. I wonder if the soldiers just lost it or if they were acting under some directive? I hope not the latter - that's a sick thought...

[Gil Galad]

But if the American Army is sending troops in, who are likely to go ballistic and beat a man to death for nothing then is that not as bad as having a directive.

on the point of the Palestinian conflict i find it hard to find any justification for the Isreali stance, sure i can see why an ordinary Isreali man or woman would be scared and worried, but i would put that down to bad leadership on there part.

[Eledhwen]

agreed. on both points. (sorry for the no caps, rushing off to morning coffee) but i don't think the american troops are inherently likely to go nuts ... hmmm... i'll think more on this and be back... what do you think about the troops and their state of mind?

[Gil Galad]

well i think the military should try to make sure people who are more likely to go nuts are not put in positions where they would be likely to go nuts.

but i have to say that i do find it hard to blame the soldiers themselves, (sorry for keep coming back to this, but its what i know) i dont even hold resentment for the soldiers who shot into the crowd on bloody sunday massacre in Derry. most of them were probably just scared kids who were told that they were likely to be shot at themselves, and even though they were the only ones firing they probably saw people with guns cos there superiors told had them in that mindset. and i would imagine its the same in Iraq, just scared kids convinced that everyone is about to kill them

[Beleg Strongbow]

I'll tell you something about the Palestinian "terrorists" Ele...

The terror of half a dozen 14-year old Palestinian boys standing in the streets hurling rocks at the Israeli Military. The soldiers stand quietly and cop the rocks from them and then call in an AH-64 Apache Gunship to come and take care of them. This is not about Anti-Semitism...this is about Human Rights, although the soldier that got hit in the helmet with a rock will tell you that the Palestinian teenager drew "first-blood".

Ask the American family of the Peace-Activist Rachel Corrie about the justice that was dealt out to her. An American-supplied, Israeli Bulldozer crushed her body while she was trying to protect a run-down Palestinian house with people still living in it, from being wiped out to make more room for Israeli occupation. All of this was filmed in horror by her colleagues. The Israeli driver and the Israeli soldiers that watched her die were given a severe "finger-waving".

[Gil Galad]

I know its terible, how can you call someone a terrorist when ur the one pointing the guns and destroying there houses. most armies about the world are more guilty of terrorism then most so called "terrorist groups"

[Catz]

and people wonder why i say that other humans scare me far worse than any animal or natural disaster..........it scares me to see the depths to which humans will sink if we can just convince ourselves that the others arent really people...........like in the prison camps when they reduced people to numbers, or the experimental "logs" of the Japanese Death Camps, or simply by calling them "terrorists"
we just never learn do we?
:catz:

[Beleg Strongbow]

We should learn...we're supposed to be an intelligent species. However, it seems that history is doomed to repeat itself.
I'm currently reading a story from a British Colonel who has said that he's appalled at the way in which the marines are being led in Iraq. He said that even his own soldiers have been threatened at gunpoint by American marines because they won't use aggressive tactics against the people in Fallujah. He said that the British prefer to use tactical response to straight-up aggressive force.

[Gil Galad]

i think most people agree with that and are smart Catz, but when people get into groups they tend to get stupid and jus go with the flow without (much) questioning. or when someone(say Hitler) makes a few good decisions(the infrastrucutre and military spending drug Germany out of the global depression) and then people just accept and trust that his later desicions(the relocation<o rather extermination>of the Jews) are all good then

[Catz]

yeah well thats part of what scares me with the whole Iraqui thing.............its the way the US forces are being whipped up by all this "patriotic" rhetoric.........most of these guys are YOUNG......they dont know what theyre doing.......and yeah Gil, youre right, the mob mentality takes over...........the horrible thing is that this seems to be being encouraged in the guise of being a "warrior" and "soldier"
which is ofc a steaming load of horse manure............warriors and soldiers have rules of honour to uphold........a lot of this is just mob violence by kids too young to know better , being egged on by those who SHOULD know better
:catz:

[Gil Galad]

and perhaps they do know beter and they are using these kids for there own selfish purposes. i think its worse to have a smart selfish person at the helm then to have a fool there.

i really think that this whole thang is gonna explode soon, and ther wont be nutin that will, or will be able to, stop it.

[Catz]

well ofc they are............those kids are nothing but cannon fodder
and i hate to say it but i think youre right.........god knows what were all gonna do when it does
:catz:

[Gil Galad]

Open war i can deal with, even if right and wrong are not clear, atleast you know who is on who's side , but with this there is just so much underhandedness, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the american authorities not giving the evidence they claim to have about the September 11th attack and then theres the really underhannded stuf that we have no idea is going on. its not looking good

[Eledhwen]

What a paradox that our intelligence should be the very thing that limits us. Ofc this would be great to discuss in a Philosophy forum (have we such wondrous thing, we wonders - aye we wonders preciouss... - shame on me for not knowing every nook and cranny 'round here :nono: )

It will explode - it's pretty close to that already. There was a headline today about an Iranian diplomat killed in Iraq. That won't help. ABout the soldiers, I think you guys have said it for me.

Beleg, thanx for bringing these examples to light. A wonderful (and extremely courageous) friend of mine left recently to go back to Palestine and work. She is a lawyer working for the UN official in Palestine who is working on this "peace process". She also does legal work on behalf of women and children who have been "detained" or separated from their families for "security reasons". I just can't recount all of the horrific stories of the abuses of power... It's an absolute violation of human rights and there is no justification for the Israeli stance.

Oh my - could you imagine if all of these things collapsed at the same time? There could very well be a domino-effect if one situation falls apart.

It really doesn't look good. I just wish there was more courage among more leaders to be critical when it is really necessary. And to withhold support for actions they know are simply destructive. But then - silly me! - I was assuming that they were in power to represent the interests of us regular folk.

[Gil Galad]

I think a Domino effect is very likely, now just imagine if the U.S start taking heavy losses in Iraq, they will throw more support behind the Isrealis and then perhaps there will be heavy non-U.S feelings all over the world and so on ....... but the worse thing is that it will be the ordinary people who will take the brunt of it, and the leaders and their pupeteers will probably just make money of it all