Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Jack wrote:I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.
I'm afraid it looks like liberation to me. Or do you share the views of those that say that if the Iraquis wanted him out they would have done it themselves? You have quoted the liberation of France, so will I: the French obviously didn't need to be liberated from the nazis then. Otherwise they would have done it themselves?
I know its risquee to make comparisons to other events in history, but if you never do, when do you learn?
Jack wrote:I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.
jez wrote:I'm afraid it looks like liberation to me. Or do you share the views of those that say that if the Iraquis wanted him out they would have done it themselves? You have quoted the liberation of France, so will I: the French obviously didn't need to be liberated from the nazis then. Otherwise they would have done it themselves?
Not my point. My point was that propaganda is misleading, and to compare the liberation of Baghdad to that of Paris or to the revolutions in Berlin or the rest of Eastern Europe is propaganda, and is misleading.I know its risquee to make comparisons to other events in history, but if you never do, when do you learn?
It certainly is risque. Of course, we can make comparisons, but if those
comparisons are wrong, then that is misleading. The US did not play a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the liberation of Paris was a totally different story from that of Baghdad, as I explained in my first post.
(and why aren't quotes working properly?)
cstaylor wrote:Jack wrote:I want to see what happened to weapons of mass destruction. Where are those weapons? So Iraq really did not have any and the US was just making excuses to take Saddam out. There are other savages ruling countries in Africa. Why is it that the US not interested in taking those out as well? The answer is Israel. African countries do not threaten Israel, that's why. America couldn't care less about other people dying. They don't care about Iraqis dying at the hands of Saddam. But they do care a single Israeli dying, which is why they wanted to remove Saddam and next Syria and then Iran.
I really don't understand this argument. If I understand you correctly, "don't help anyone if you can't help everyone"?
I'm not sure if I want to know the answer to this question, but can you briefly summarize your problem with Jews in general and Zionism in particular?
" wrote:We didn't play a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall? Hello???? The people behind that wall knew full well who they were in a cold war with. They knew that war wasn't worth fighting just like the Iraqis decided fighting a physical war with the US is moronic. Two places, two types of wars.
Jack wrote:I anticipated your spin on my post which is why I did not use the word "Jewish" but instead I said Israel. Knowing that Jews are untouchable in the western world so I use Israel.
cstaylor wrote:I'm not confusing the issue. I made the statement clearly: what is Jack's issue with Israeli Jews? What is his solution for the fate of Palestine?
Jack wrote:This is from Reuters. I pasted the first 3 paragraphs. Read the last paragraph.
Israel to Palestinians: Learn Lesson of Iraq War
By Matt Spetalnick
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said on Thursday it hoped the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would teach the Palestinians the lesson that they must install new leaders and abandon their uprising for independence.
But militant groups spearheading the 30-month-old revolt said they would not be cowed by the U.S. conquest of Baghdad and instead threatened to intensify attacks on Israel.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz hammered home his government's wish that the U.S.-led war on Iraq would not only eliminate one of Israel's sworn enemies but chasten Palestinian militants into laying down their arms.
.. and he allows no dissent. To the extent that the media do not question him openly (or are not allowed to question him, as we saw at his scripted press conference), they too share some complicity in this hypocritical and unpatriotic undermining of American principles.
Rabid Nelson wrote:Also, keep in mind that in the minds of the Iraqi people, the US is not waging a war against just Saddam, but them, the people, and their way of life. Whether or not that is actually true isn't the issue, just that the Iraqi people believe it. Many who did not fall for the propoganda glorifying Saddam may have still fallen for much of the anti-American propoganda. Many people who hate Saddam see the US as a greater threat still. What kind of problems is this going to create in restructuring Iraqi society, and again, is this really the best way?
Rabid Nelson wrote:
Progress was being made in fixing the problem of WMDs in Iraq.
Rabid Nelson wrote:Many believed that the progress wasn't happened fast enough, but even more agreed (in the UN at least) that the inspectors were doing their jobs. Mr. Bush insisted that the inspectors were not acheiving their objective and used that as one of his main justifications for invading Iraq.
Rabid Nelson wrote: Obviously, when the invasion began, international relations between the US and a number of countries were seriously damaged. If no solid evidence ever comes to light that Iraq was indeed not disarming, this could damage the relationship further and possibly deligitimize the American occupation even further than it already has in the eyes of the world. That is why WMDs are still a big deal, even if they were never the most compelling reasons for invading Iraq.
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:Your ability to leap to assumptions clearly knows no bounds
" wrote:.. Which press conference? I think the US media is one of the most balanced in the world.. Where is it more balanced, or diversified? Japan? France? .. Switzerland?
It's funny; my rightist friends think CNN is pinko/commie propaganda, and my leftist friends think it's right-wing war mongering.. So what is it?
I saw a news report on ABC awhile back on the news media's coverage of the Israeli/Palestine problem:
"As long as we're getting a proportionate number of compaints for being either pro-Isael or pro-Palestine, we're doing a good job."
GJ
Jack wrote:I'll say it again, I cannot stomach the idiotic Jewsih lackeys' (Americans) thinking anymore.
Jack wrote:Crap, yes, I believe Japan, Britain and France have a more unbiased and balanced news reporting.
Jack wrote:What makes you think that CNN or the US media is better?
Jack wrote:TRUST ME. In america you are being fed 100% bulshit that passes as news.
Jack wrote:Have you ever seen whar the realu guy on the street in Baghdad thinks of the US invasion?
Jack wrote:All you see are the 50 or so people cheering the US troops while ignoring the other 5 million.
Jack wrote:I'll say it again, I cannot stomach the idiotic Jewsih lackeys' (Americans) thinking anymore.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests