|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 07, 2003 12:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
and desecrating UK WWII cemeteries lots of French are actually hoping that their allies don’t win.
Since you didn't bother I will add here that the French leader denounced this act as atrocious and unforgivable. Oh and since you also didn't bother to mention it "les ango-saxons" includes the British......... (well technically the english, the Scots, Welsh and Irish are allegedly of celtic stock)
Quote:
Granted the scene is still under investigation
Indeed it is, for all we know it could be the very people the UN/Allies from 1991 abbandoned to the tender mercies of the republican gaurd we allowed back into Iraq at the end of the last war......... I'll wait for the full report before speculating, though it clearly looks like a massacre site.
Quote:
Hmm I have not called you a Saddam supporter
Nope, you just make general references to "appeasers" without bothering to clear up for people whom/what you mean most of the time. clarification would be handy every now and then.
Quote:
Hmm yeah he did the recounts himself. Actually the recounts demanded by Gore were only in Democrat counties…so the officials doing the counting if anything had an agenda to find the count in favor of Gore.
I'm disapointed, I go to the trouble of putting a wink to indicate a joking comment and you miss it entirely. *sighs*
Quote:
Apples and oranges. Create a thread on each and we can debate it as time permits. I started a thread on North Korea so you can find my views there.
Your comment was quite clear. Invade/remove from power anyone practising such barbaric acts. No debate, no discussion.
Quote:
First, England. You can get 80% of the mandates with 30-35% of the votes. OK, it is not realistic, but 55% of the mandates with 40% of the votes is.
This is because the system has "blocks" in it, wheres it does not matter how much you win with.
A little help with a basic description of the english system to clear things up. Basically there's ooo about 600 (roughly) seats in parliment and whoever gets more than half of those seats wins. This means you could theoretically get no votes at all in say 150 seats, and still win if you won 300 of the remaining 450 seats. So as long as you win those 300 seats, if they are the smallest seats (numbers of people wise) you could still end up with only 30 or 40% of the total vote if the other 200 odd are from larger population seats and have high percentages of people voting against you.
As far fetched as the above sounds, in the time of Thatcher I believe for 2 or three elections running she won no seats at all in Scotland and Wales. Because of the system in place though, she won enough English seats to still dominate the parliment and therefore pass laws over Scotland and Wales, even though no-one there had elected someone from her party. Now with devolution and parliments in both countries it's slightly different.
It's more complex even than that, but yes you can win in britain by getting less people voting for you than the other guy, you just have to prioritise the seats you win...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 01:07 AM |
|
|
That's exactly what I am talking about (thanks for helping me PH, I missed the right words (seat, etc.) and you did not even mention that the english system is quite extreme in the sense that the one who gets the most votes wins the seat. So if there are 3-4 decent parties, you can end up having all of the seats with 30-40% of the votes (if you win everywhere).
The hungarian modell is much more stable.
There are 210 seats which is shared among the parties according to the percentage of the votes they got (but the parties below 5% gets nothing, their votes get lost, so if 20% of the votes is lost, basically every party's result is divided by 0.8 - the remaining mandates are also shared).
176 seats are decided in the "english manner" - though not exactly the same way because one must seize more than 50% of the votes to win the seat, if no one is able to achieve it, voting is repeated with the best two (maybe three) candidates standing (just like in french president elections).
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 01:34 AM |
|
|
NP mate  I'm not sure I got the explanation 100% right, but what I said is the basics to it. What you said about the seats is right too. There's usuallly 3 parties here, Labour (Blair's party), Conservative (thatcher, Major etc) and Liberals (not been in power since WWI!). Then there's local parties like the Scotish/Welsh Nationals and finally the weird ones like those in Ireland eg Sinn Fein, who used to win seats, but never take their place in parliment as they refused to sign the oath to the queen. Usually each party maximises their funds and efforts on places they're likely to win and margnial seats which are close to them winning and all but ignore seats where they are unlikely to win. By doing that they manage to win as many seats as they can for their efforts, and all but fail to get any votes elsewhere.
The "hungarian" model we call proportional representation here, and it's used in the Scotish Parliment, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish thingy (can't remember the name!). The main objection that's been put up for this system is that it kinda removes the ideal of voting for an individual if not done right, you're just voting for whoever the party puts there....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 05:59 AM |
|
|
Wub I reviewed the web link that you provided about the UK dossier and read about 10 of the articles. I am actually kind of surprised at people’s response given the information presented. Here are some of what I saw:
Worst things:
1. Parts of the dossier were plagiarized. Plagiarism is a very bad thing and whatever agent or politician who knowingly plagiarized they should be fired and/or publicly reprimanded. As well I think the UK government should compensate the original author
2. Parts of the dossier were written 12 years ago. If this information was presented as a historical look at Saddam’s pattern of deception then it is really not a problem. If it was presented as the most recent evidence then that is a deliberate lie. To my understanding of the articles it was not presented as the latter.
Important observations.
1. All the articles indicate it was UK intelligence, not USA intelligence. So to fault the USA is not correct. Most countries rely upon intelligence from other countries to be factual.
2. The dossier, even the plagiarized parts, was factual. No article claimed the information was made-up or untrue.
3. It was “cited” by Powell. Cited means that out of all the evidence “presented” that Powell “cited” this report as a further background information.. Powell did not “present” this paper during his speech but “cited” it as further support of the historical nature of Saddam’s deception. Much like when you read a book or an encyclopedia article…at the end of the article there is usually a heading “for further reading”. No one in the articles stated that Powell quoted from the dossier during his briefing to my understanding.
4. Throwing out the baby with the bath water. Powell presented a multitude of facts. Lets say he “presented” 100 facts and “cited” 1 plagiarized, albeit factual , dossier…why would that discredit all the vast quantities of other information?
5. Lie in the dictionary states “tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive”. The first part-“to tell an untruth”- The dossier was factual thus it was truth. The second part of the definition- “pretend with intent to deceive”- again one would have to look at the intentions of the UK intelligence officer/politicians who wrote the dossier. Were they intentionally trying to deceive….if so appropriate action should be taken. Was Powell/Bush trying to deceive…I did not find one shred of evidence that Powell/Bush knew parts of the report were plagiarized. In fact logic would dictate that they didn’t know…why they would present knowingly plagiarized material at such a historic moment? It doesn’t make a lot of sense…there is just too much risk and zero benefit, particularly when all that someone had to do was reference the original author
6. If you look at the evidence put forth by Powell at the UN (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2728545.stm) the dossier doesn’t even register and accounts for none of his major points except the third point…which again was a look at Saddam’s historical 12 year history/pattern of deception.
Well any ways interesting to read about the situation. Thanks again Wub for the research and links. Let me know if you think I am missed something.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 06:25 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 7 Apr 2003
|
Quote
Saddam Husein killed Kurds(which is terrible) but Kurds do not really count as Middle easteners...in the last couple of years it probably was the Izraeli(Americas "Great Allie") army that killed allot of Middle Easterners...”
Umm Saddam has killed somewhere over one million middle easterners….Iranians, Kurds in Iraq, and Shiites (sp?). More ME’s killed by Saddam then any other person by a long shot.
Quote
“Well, I do know a few.
First, England. You can get 80% of the mandates with 30-35% of the votes. OK, it is not realistic, but 55% of the mandates with 40% of the votes is.
This is because the system has "blocks" in it, wheres it does not matter how much you win with.
Second, France.
Third, Hungary (though our system is a bit mixed).”
Hmm I didn’t know that. I am personally not a huge fan of our electoral system, but I guess it does have its reasons for existence.
Quote
“I'm disapointed, I go to the trouble of putting a wink to indicate a joking comment and you miss it entirely. *sighs*”
Hmm guess I need to pay attention to those icons more
Quote
“Invade/remove from power anyone practising such barbaric acts. No debate, no discussion.”
Hmm I guess that is why I have been involved in over 40 pages of discussion. I guess that is why the UK and USA have been involved in 12 years of discussion/debate. Lets stick with the facts.
See one of the big differences between the appeaser crowd and the regime crowd is exactly that. The appeasers want to talk forever and practice diplomacy until the end of the world. The regime change crowd gives discussion and diplomacy a long time to work (namely 12 years in this case), but then knows that after a while you are a like a cat chasing its tail….then decisive action is taken to intervene in the situation. Hardly the actions of “war-mongers” as some have liked to state. A war-monger would of already attacked Syria, Russia, etc. as they appear to have been giving arms to Iraq during the whole embargo and resolution 1441.
*getting dizzy hearing csarmi and PH discuss their government system*
Quote
“There's usuallly 3 parties here, Labour (Blair's party), Conservative (thatcher, Major etc) and Liberals (not been in power since WWI!)”
Ok I understand liberal and conservative party…but what exactly is the Labor party…it brings to my mind unions but not sure what it means for the UK.
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 09:02 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 7 Apr 2003
|
No need to get dizzy, Dargon. You can tell, that we defended your president election system in a way.
Now about parties. In Europe, the 2 leading ones are usually the conservatives (center-right) and the labor party (social democratic parties, center-left).
The others play little role (the liberals are usually at 5-10%, maybe green party and some other stuff too). However, in some countries there is a "new right" arising which is usually marked politically incorrect (Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, etc.). I don't agree on that, but that's another point. (they are often considered xenophobic, anti-semetic (a-s is a usual politics gun in the hand of the liberals/socialdemocrats))
Now about England, it's an interesting story.
They used to have the liberals (whigs?) and the conservatives (tories). At the beginning, of course the conservatives were at the royal side, the liberals were the reformers, it's the usual story in european countries.
The labour party started to take serious role in the XXieme siecle and sometime between 1920-1950 they simply get the place of the liberals (they grew big, the liberals got small).
You had a different story in US, as the labour party never had a chance to arise. Partially because of the fact that the Soveit Union was the devil (main enemy).
labor ~ light communists
(but don't tell them that, they'll feel offended and they'll be right)
another issue
Smisek, sorry I left you out last time.
"Smisek you started out your post very well with a different and unique perspective. Then it went downhill fast from there."
That is what Dargon told you. Now you have a valid point in saying that "that as far as I say america is best I am doing very well...", but I am called a war-appeaser and I still have the same feeling as him (in spite of the fact that we seldom agree).
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nor has the U.N. even been an efficient provider of relief (which is what you administer when development fails and famine strikes). As a New York Times correspondent in Africa, I saw first-hand how much superior were the relief efforts of such faith-based organizations as World Vision and Catholic Relief Services.
They have different roles. I can't speak for UN efforts in specific, but I can speak for government financed aid in general. The difference between faith-based aid and government aid is the difference between small picture and big picture. Faith-based aid is very effective at the small stuff (which is extraordinarily important) such as direct food relief, small scale medical care, etc. This is the stuff that makes good news stories. Thing Mother Teresa. Government aid is the big stuff that doesn't make good copy, but is overall more important. We're talking things like rural electrification, family planning (and before you jump on this, it does not mean running around performing abortions, it means educating women about the existence of things like condoms and birth control pills), nationwide education projects, infrastructure building, etc. There are numerous countries which are more prosperous now, at least partly due to economic aid, not the least of which are the Phillipines, Thailand, South Korea, India, and others. I'm not claiming that aid was the entire story, but all those countries have, or continue to receive extensive amounts of aid from both the US and other countries.
Quote:
Quote
?only people that are going to feel the impact of this assault are the civilians,?
Hmm I guess that is why coalition forces have gone to extreme lengths, costs and difficulties to hit military targets when it is so much more simple and less dangerous for us to level everything that poses a potential threat without a care for civilians. I guess that is why coalition forces are bringing food and medical attention to assist the Iraqi citizens.
The point isn't whether or not the military is doing an admirable job, the point is that the military isn't perfect and the citizens are definitely feeling extensive effects of the assault. By the standards of war, civilian casualties are negligible, true, but by the standards of peace, even an uncomfortable peace, civilian casualties are astronomical. The US, UK, Australian and Polish military forces are doing a tremendous job, but they should never have been placed in the uncomfortable position that they are.
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted April 08, 2003 01:31 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 7 Apr 2003
|
Hi dArGOn,
It’s good to see you checked the sources yourself too. Since you asked how exactly I found them with Google, I’ll give you an idea. I wanted to know more about Powell’s evidence, because I heard it was said to be copied from a student and even the spelling errors were the same. So I enter these four words and I get 3 890 results, most of them are what I’m looking for. When I checked some of them, none seemed to contradict that the evidence had been plagiarized. But then it occurred to me that my selection could have been biased because I used such specific words. After a few tries, I came up with the more neutral input of Powell + evidence + intelligence document and among very much general information about Powell’s evidence was the link that I gave you. From all the searches that I executed, I couldn’t find links that denied that the document had been plagiarized.
But let’s get back to the debate. You are correct of course when you say that it is more the British than the American government that is to blame here. So let’s be clear on this: it’s not the Bush government that has plagiarized the document and I don’t accuse them of it either. It is clear for me that it’s primarily the Blair government that has spread intentional misinformation to manipulate us. But I do think that America is to blame too.
First let me remind you that the reason that I focus on intentional misinformation from the American government is not out of mere anti-americanism. It is because I think that American propaganda has the largest influence on our opinions. And I want to show why I think that people who blindly believe what Bush preaches, may get a false view of the war.
Having said that, I think that the plagiarized intelligence document also discredits America. Let’s assume that America got this document from Brittain without knowing that it was plagiarized. It’s questionable how credible that is, because keeping such information away from your allies when war is approaching, is something that I find unjustified and not very likely. But it seems to me that, since the stakes are so high, quite a few people from the American government looked into it. After all, Powell’s presentation should deliver the ultimate evidence to the world that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. Also, I assume that there are enough people in the American government that are knowledgeable about what kind of intelligence is acquired from Iraq. So my points is: I find it unbelievable that none of these experts can see the difference between a very up to date intelligence document and a 12-year old document from a student! They should at least start to question the document and refrain from using it or ask for clarification at the British government.
Isn’t it funny how we both start reasoning from the fact that the stakes are high and both arrive at an opposite conclusion. .
On the other hand, if the British government did tell that the document was plagiarized, than it needs no question at all that Powell knew that the document was false and should not be used. Either way, it makes sense to me that the Bush government knew that they were using false evidence to justify the war. Do I know that for sure? Nope, it keeps guessing. But I think that this matter still discredits America (and especially Brittain of course). After all, heaping praise upon a document that should justify a war but is plagiarized from a student, edited at will and outdated for a long time, makes you look silly. Even when you don’t know that it is false.
Apart from the discussion if America spread outright lies or simply misinformation, you brought up some other points about the document, dArGOn. But I don’t think they are all true:
If this information was presented as a historical look at Saddam’s pattern of deception then it is really not a problem.
I agree, in that case there would be no problem apart from the plagiarism, but you already adressed that. However, Powell was to present evidence for a strike on Iraq anno 2003, not 1991. He could only use the document when he explicitly mentioned that it was based on 12 year old intelligence and he did not do that. So by using it to justify the current attack on Iraq, he at least suggested it wasn’t outdated.
The dossier, even the plagiarized parts, was factual. No article claimed the information was made-up or untrue.
In fact some articles did show that the text had been edited to make the Iraqi regime look worse. Numbers have been bumped up, ‘opposition groups’ has been changed to ‘terrorist organizations’ etc. For more accurate info, check this link for example.
Lets say he “presented” 100 facts and “cited” 1 plagiarized, albeit factual , dossier…why would that discredit all the vast quantities of other information?
Let’s say he presented 1 plagiarized, mendacious dossier along with 100 other ‘facts’...wouldn’t that make you suspicious of these other ‘facts’? It’s just the opposite perspective with the same information .
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that it seems like the American government lies, though we can’t say for sure. But I find this case very suspicious and it does at least embarass America, even though Powell just ‘cited’ the document. But how ashaming must this be for the Blair goverment, since it obviously lied to convince people of their cause. I hope the British (and other) people take this into account when they decide to be pro- or anti-war.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 07:18 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Apr 2003
|
Thanks for the education about political parties Csarmi I appreciate it.
Quote
“labor ~ light communists”
Since you see rather well informed on the subject. Can you list some different issues and where the labor party falls? I am very curious because in the beginning of Bush’s presidency I heard a lot about Blair and Bush being very different politically. Now, at least as far as Iraq, they seem unified. They also seem to have formed a friendship and general respect for each other. I am curious just how different the labor party might be from the republican party. If you state the labor party is “light communist” which is usually what I equate with socialism…then I would say that the labor party has a lot in common with the left wing of the USA’s democratic party. So more specifics would be helpful if you have the time.
Quote
“The difference between faith-based aid and government aid is the difference between small picture and big picture.”
Good differentiation…hadn’t thought of it that way.
Wub thanks for the search tips
Quote
“Isn’t it funny how we both start reasoning from the fact that the stakes are high and both arrive at an opposite conclusion. .”
Indeed
Quote
“false evidence”
I don’t quite get how you go from plagiarized (copied without permission) to false?
Quote
“Let’s say he presented 1 plagiarized, mendacious dossier along with 100 other ‘facts’...wouldn’t that make you suspicious of these other ‘facts’? It’s just the opposite perspective with the same information .”
Hehe. I guess for me, the standard that would make me start to really question is if there was one proven intentional lie alongside 100 other “facts”.
Wub well we seem to draw different conclusions, but I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I enjoy your reasoned analysis and the general “soul searching” tone to your posts. Thanks Where are you from any way?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 07:38 AM |
|
|
I got to hand it to you Brits...your leaders have styleI was rolling when I read this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-36190a37.htm
In a later appearance in parliament, the defense secretary was in a jocular mood when asked about reports of Basra citizens going on a looting rampage.
"It does appear, fortunately so far, to be confined to Iraqi citizens (who are) -- should I use the word -- "liberating" items that are in charge of the regime, going into the former facilities of the regime, to the secret organizations, and redistributing that wealth among the Iraqi people. So, I regard such behavior as perhaps good practice."
Mr. Hoon was also asked about the failure of the Iraqi air force to respond to the coalition invasion.
"I think it is fair to say that the Iraqi air force was confined to ground operations."
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 08:08 AM |
|
|
|
Here is an excellent presentation by the USA’s DoD with a Q&A about Iraqi war crimes, POW’s, Geneva Convention, enemy combatants, & Guantanamo Bay. It cleared up a lot for me and I think will be informational for people on both sides even though we may disagree on the DoD’s position. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/04/mil-030407-dod01.htm
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 09:23 PM |
|
|
Iranian(also know as persians) were killed in a war...then you could say that the americans killed thousands of iraquis..eh?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 01:28 AM |
|
|
British Labour Party: (assuming you still value my opinion on things, I could be "biased" after all)
Labour are the most recent of the 3 main parties, first coming to power in the aftermath of WWII. Their power originally came from the Unions and traditional socialist strongholds, their following therefore has always been strongest in cities and towns as opposed to villages and the countryside. To this day much (less now though, see New Labour) of the voting rights to decide party issues, and much of the funding for the labour party came from this socialist/union background. The majority of labour politicians have at some point been a member of a union, though none I know of have actually lead a union here.
To understand Labour and Blair though it's necessary to divide the party into "old" and "new" labour, as blair has reformed the party since taking charge some 10 years ago now.
"old" labour: Basically very much socialist background, state ownership of everything, no public/private partnerships, all education/health to be free (they introduced the NHS in their first government), strong unions and workers rights and so on. They tended to be anti-empire and anti-war, begining the process of withdrawl from empire by handing back the "jewel" in India. Prominent labour politicians also tended towards being members of CND and other anti-war groups here, which would hint at "old" labours ideals on foreign policy.
Their policies of supporting the health service and education often lead to high taxes and this gained them a bad reputation, their policies of union support and offering unions increased power saw a spate of strikes during the late 1970's which crippled the british economy. This with other matters all but persuaded people that they were unfit to rule by 1979. (strangely enough the day I was born, Thatcher took power!)
So by 1979 they were thrown from power and did not return for another 18 years. Along the way they backed unions heavily during thatcher's reign and continued with the ideals outlined above, which were still proving unpopular. In the late 1980's a guy called John Smith became leader and lead the party towards modernisation, starting the change to "new" labour, he died soon (not sure about when exactly) later and Tony Blair took over. It's worth noting at the time that pretty much most of the adults I knew said mostly "Tony who?" (mind you I was only roughly 10 or 11 at the time).......
Under Blair the labour party has become much more like the right wing conservatives that he opposes. The union power over the party has been all but smashed, and former core policies have been completely turned on their head. Public/private initiatives are now fine, especially in the NHS and education sectors. Free education is now no longer a policy, Heavy spending on health and such things is no longer carried out (hence less taxes in theory) and foreign policy is..... well hardly akin to the CND roots of the party shall we say*. The "new" labour party is more right wing than before, probably what you'd call center-right I guess.
So Blair's party began as "light communists" and are more now "Light conservatives" under his rule. That would be why he might seem to match Bush as he's more of Bush's thinking than a traditional Labour party leader would be.
* An interesting note here. Some years back before the First Gulf War, many politicians here signed a letter condemning the conservative party's (then in power) stance in selling arms to Iraq. The same type of thing the modern Labour party hates seeing people do now. It's interesting to note that whilst most of the labour party signed the letter, not one of the current cabinet bothered to do so. "new" labour also began it's reign with a so-called "ethical" foreign policy, but a quick glance at a list of whom we sell arms to would clearly show that "un-ethical" would be more accurate, unless of course you count selling arms to countries like Nigeria ethical!
Which brings me to this article I read today:
Quote:
Donald Rumsfeld threatened Syria for apparently aiding Iraq with millitary supplies. He claims the Syrians gave Sadam Hussain Russian-made night vision goggles. Damascus denies this, but does Syriehave any other supplies Sadam desires?
Britain's latest strategic export controls report (2001) does not list the export of any night vision goggles or image intensification equipment to Damscus. But the government did allow other vision-enhancing military kit to go to Syria.
In 2001 the UK exported "equipment for the use of military infra-red/thermal imaging equipment" and "technology for the use of military infrared /thermal imaging equipment". In 1998 Britain allowed the temporary export of a "weapon day/night sight"
Britain admits to selling £500,000 to £1 million of military exports to Syria every year. There are also "open" licenses so that any amount of "equipment for the use of sub-machine guns, equipment for the use of rifles, equipment for the use of assault rifles and equipment for the use of sniper rifles" and "military electronic equipment" can go to Syria.
Yes ladies and gents, the very same Syria America has long dubbed a rogue state.
A number of points:
1. So much for ethical FP (see above)
2. This shows either a severe lack of foresight in selling to someone you may later be fighting, a mercenary outlook on the world, or the belief that america won't be going after Syria (or all!)
3. If america does threaten or at least get annoyed with countries selling Rogue states night vision equipment, can we expect a cooling of the Bush/Blair partnership, or will bush merely get slightly unamused but not mention it, showing, shall we say slight bias?
"we only object to you selling arms to nasty people if you're not our friend, in which case we withold the right to use it as part of a cause for war"
4. Is it entirely impossible that some of those same items were passed to Hussain and that even now our own troops are being engaged by enemies equiped by our own governments idiocy/greed?
Wanna know my opinion? I think britain saw this coming, and is selling Syria arms as part of a sublte, but good plan. If we sell Syria arms and then america invade Syria, think about it, we will, in a roundabout way be killing americans...... friendly fire! We're simply planning ahead and getting our revenge for those killed by american bombs, tanks and troops from OUR army! It's even easy to get away with as you didn't actually pull the trigger! Perfect forward planning by Blair!
(whole above paragraph was NOT serious, no outcry please!)
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 10:00 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 9 Apr 2003
|
Thanks PH for the labor party description
Quote
"(assuming you still value my opinion on things, I could be "biased" after all) "
You have periods of lucidity
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 01:22 PM |
|
|
As and aside the above really only counts for the British Labour party, the others I know little about
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 02:36 PM |
|
|
Saw an (Arabian) talking head on CNN last night. He was saying that Saddam wanted to be remembered as the new "Saladin."
Saladin was a Kurd. Somehow don't think that Saddam would want to be known as one of the people he gassed.
So either a) talking head is an idiot or b) Saddam has a wonderful appreciation of irony.
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 04:14 PM |
|
|
It's just plain logical to sell someone weapons and then attack him.
You weren't serious, I know, but think about it.
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 07:38 PM |
|
|
Csarmi, my dear southern friend, there also is another option that the US brings in biological weapons(if none are found) and then claims to find them in order to justify this war...
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 08:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
These are only a few examples of propaganda during the First Gulf War. But I am sure that these media techniques seem familiar to many of us. Now let me tell you how ?clean? this war really was. During ?Operation Desert Storm? 88500 tons of boms were dropped on Iraq and Quwait. Of these bombs, only 7% were ?smart? bombs. And even more than 40% of these smart bombs missed their goal. From the other bombs 70% hit an other goal than they were planned to hit. Even general Schwarzkopf admits on 27 februari 1991 that many of the information that was revealed, was carefully planned misinformation. But what shocks me the most is that 79% of all Americans during the First Gulf War is convinced of being informed rightfully!! That makes one think...
Yeah, well, 56% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Unfortunately, only 34% of people know that.
Seriously, on Larry King last night they were talking about how watching the war in different countries was almost like watching completley different wars. Few deliberately say or show things that are actually made up, but each country's coverage shows what they want shown. Consequently, everybody can rightly accuse everybody else of being brainwashed. Of course, being the brainwashed that you all are, I can't expect you to understand that. See, fun, isn't it?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 08:56 PM |
|
|
LOL!!!!!
You're priceless bort. How right you are. No wonder you've got all those red stars on your lapel!!!!
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
