ihkny, I totally agree with your assessment of news organizations--it's a really good point to bring up. There are ways to circumvent the hype, however. One sure-fire way is to make sure one does not depend on only one news source. It really works! But it also requires a lot of effort though, because not only is there a lot of reading, one must also 'read between the lines.' The way I do it is to pay more attention to the real news in the articles than to what politicians say. Politicians color everything with their own ambitions, and are not to be entirely trusted--ever. No matter what party.

Of course, this takes work, and most people are either too busy, too apathetic, or just plain too lazy to take the time to do it. Which is exactly what corrupt governments depend upon. Like Gwenog said, the BBC is a good news source. Der Speigel also has an English news version online. International news sources have another perk--they can educate us about what is truly going on in countries other than America. We don't get that with news on the TV. If we understand more about what people in other nations are dealing with, it's a lot harder to be indifferent to the struggles they face.

I for one do not support the war in Iraq, and I never have. I was able to reach that conclusion because I was already well-informed through many news sources. I also do not support the idea of a "War on Terror." This is because it is too vague. A war with another country can go on until someone gives up. A "War on Terror" can be fought indefinitely, as there are no borders. It can be taken to any country, for whatever reason any politician in power wishes to utilize (or pull out of his backside) . "Wars on Intangible Entities" are pointless and are doomed to fail, just as our "War on Drugs" has failed. This is not based solely upon emotion, but upon what I have read and learned.

As for suicide bombers and the likelihood of young people of either sex taking it up is concerned, well, as long as there are differences in opinion, there will be people zealous enough to give their lives for it. It only depends on how strongly you believe in your cause.

"We cause more trouble than help ?... Well make all of these people stop fighting and we won't have to get involved. They involved us by attacking us. As long as people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are walking around History will repeat itself over and over and over again. "

And who authorised you to get involved? Let me think....nobody!
But when people die in Bosnia it needs a Blair to get America down to help while people are dying. Didn't they fight then too? Where was the world-saving America then? Where was America before Pearl Harbor? Huh? I thought America had a mission to stop people fighting, how ironic are these examples then.

So Iraq attacked America? When exactly did that happen can you please recall that I must have missed that prior to 19th March 2003 Iraqis went to America to kill. I would like to have an objective source.
Besides why did Daddy put Saddam up to where he was when Son get involved? What kind of sick game is this actually? Weren't they buddies or homies as you could call that? And this very odd connection the Bush family has with Bin Ladens family. Were all these people put where they were just to attack America. If so I am really to say that you had the most unintelligent presidents on earth who positioned a guy that high that he attacked his country later. What a beatutiful oxmeron.


"The media is untrustworthy, they only want you to know what their party (Politicians) want you to know. If you mean I won't understand it because it is in a different language, I completely agree ! I'll search around for it, thanks for bringing it up. "


Yes I meant the language and you are the only person calling BBC untrustworthy. I guess you are working in the media to say so?

"It is kind of personal, as you are saying I'm (obviously) prejudice against Iraqi children ? I am prejudice about a lot of things, I'm not going to lie, but I don't think I ever said to let the American soldiers just go and massacre Iraqi children because they're all going to grow up to be little terrorists. That is not what I think, that is hopefully not happening anymore, and if there are girls that are in that exact scenario that I chose males to represent then, alright, females are moving on up in the honor chain to suicide bomb- yippie. *sarcasm* "


You say it is kind of personal when I make a general thesis that everyone is prejudice. That doesn't make a lot of sense especially not when you later on agree that you are indeed prejudiced

I don't recall saying that you claimed anything like that so in future read a little bit more careful please. I don't like repeating myself. Waste of engery you know. All this typing.

Well, I do think that the American government and its media have had a big part in trying to paint bin Laden and Hussein with the same brush! So I can see the confusion. But actually, they're two really different people. Hussein was a Muslim, but he didn't even care that much about Islam, whereas bin Laden uses his religion as an excuse to murder.

No, Hussein was no saint--he was a dictator who ruled with an iron fist as they say. But we never, and I mean never, had a real excuse to invade Iraq. Iraq never invaded our country. They did not bomb our cities. They had enough problems after they got their backsides served to them for Kuwait in the first Gulf War. The intangible "War on Terror" was simply moved to a venue where Bush wanted a war. He had no evidence of his claims of WMDs, and when they couldn't be found, he pushed for war anyhow, deliberately disregarding intelligence that countered his claims. That was why I was against the invasion--Bush was just hot-to-trot to attack, like he couldn't wait, and a true statesman is not like that. It was pretty strong evidence that it was a personal vendetta, and Bush didn't mind getting other people killed to get his way.

Hussein was just one dictator out of many. But...he was a dictator that the Bush family had a personal grudge against. There are other dictators out there in the world right now, murdering, torturing their own people--stripping the land, keeping world aid for their own coffers while their people starve, but no, America doesn't do anything about them. Because they have nothing to offer America. Iraq did. Lots of oil. When Di.ck Cheney was in charge of Halliburton, he was quoted in a speech, proving he knew about the oil peak and that it was in America's interests to secure oil-rich areas, namely, the Middle East. Coincidence that we just decided to insinuate ourselves there and build bases?

As Gwenog said, no, America didn't step in right away to help Serbia. Because it was not in America's interests at that time to place its soldiers in danger. I don't blame America for that. Most countries (and on a small scale, most people) are self-serving. But the war in Iraq has been a travesty. We didn't jump in to help--we started it. And it was started on lies. It was continued despite constant failure and untold expense--both human and financial.

Services to our brave soldiers were farmed out to private corporations made of Bush buddies who got no-bid contracts, who oftentimes do a horrid job of looking after our guys (the recent electrocutions of our soldiers due to bad plumbing and bad wiring comes immediately to mind).

The thing that makes other countries so angry with us is not that we are just as self-serving as they are, but that we love to beat our collective chests and claim we aren't self-serving! "Oh, we went to Iraq to free the people from Saddam!" No, actually-- we didn't! We went there to find WMDs. But when there weren't any, the spin changed to this noble little tale of freedom-fighting. Weagh. We Americans may fall en masse for such fanciful propaganda, but our far savvier allies do not.

Thus why its good to read more than just American news.

And to those who argue that it was not a personal vendetta that Bush had? Well, that's where it's my opnion, based on what I've learned. I have not heard of any paper in which Bush says, "By golly I hate that Saddam, let's invade!" But the Downing Street memo does prove he wanted to invade Iraq and was willing to fabricate reasons to do so.

I have two things to say:

Kelly, where are you? I'd really like to know what your teacher said when she brought up this topic. How did she respond to your replies? Which opinion did she support? Just out of curiosity.

And my second point...

ihkny I think mentioned all the programs currently applied in America. Helping the homeless and the unemployed, giving prisoners a good way of living...I had stated that all these measures, and many more I am not aware of, are just a way to manipulate the mass. Let me explain that.

When you see your government spending money for social care, trying to "help" those in need, you certainly feel that your politicians are trying to make a change. Yes, crime rates may not have dropped, poverty is still there, but these people are trying, right?
Then, there were the events of 9/11. What happened in New York back then, was a bane to Americans. Not only because they were hurt emotionally, but also because their country no longer seemed secure, inapproachable, far from all the plagues around the rest of the world. So, politicians needed to do something. To boost their citizens' confidence, to regain their trust in the country and their actions.
So, here comes the war in Iraq. The main point was to fight terrorism, right? To fight back, to revenge the death of so many innocents. But many people would react against that, the people who had no confidence to these politicians from the very beginning. So, they used all these programs to show that they really do care, that they try to make Americans' way of living better, to make their country safe again.
So, on one hand, we have the social programs to quiet those who would protest, the simple people who never trusted Bush's part. On the other hand, we have the war in Iraq as a payback for 9/11 events. This war was presented as a war for patriotism. A war to protect one's country.

I don't know if this makes sense, or if it is true. It is just an assumption I'm making based on the way I see things.

But as Darcy said, we have to read between the lines, not only in news reports on tv, but also, when reading newspapers, magazines, articles online etc. I'm studying journalism and I can assure you that journalists are trained to present things the way they want them to be for their personal purposes. Do not trust what they are showing you. Especially when politics are involved.

If you had to choose between sacrificing the life of ten American soldiers or one Iraqi child, who would you choose? Why?

I'm pretty sure we have been sacrificing American Soldiers for the lives of many for over 200 years. From the beginning with the Citizen Soldiers to todays fighting men and women we have been sacrificing our lives for the defense of the nation and for people around the world. It truly is an unfair question, but if you ask the children of Iraq or Afghanistan you would be hard pressed to find one that didn't know of at least one American Soldier that lost their life. I will have to say that we sacrifice everyday, not only for the children of foreign countries but for our own children.

~I am going to disagree with this. I don't think that what President Bush did what encourage more violence. The violence was already there. The violence is unbriddled by the terrorists...they don't care who gets hurt or killed and that includes themselves or their women and children, just as long as they take down Americans with them.
America is not stooping to the level of terrorists. The last time I checked America didn't form a terror group against any Middle Eastern country, hijack any planes, plant any bombs under Federal buildings, place bombs on people as sacrificial, suicide bombers.

If you had to choose between sacrificing the life of ten American soldiers or one Iraqi child, who would you choose? Why?
~I really don't like this question and my answer is will reflect not only that but also as my role as a military wife. First of all how can you choose? To anyone who values human life how can you choose? But I will tell you this, it is more common then the public probably knows that Iraqi children are armed with guns and shooting our men and women. Children as young as 10! It may sound harsh but I love my husband and I want him with me and if that means if someone who is threatening his life whether it be an adult or child needs to die because he is defending himself or his unit is defending him...I'm sure you get my drift.

The problem with war is that both sides believe wholeheartedly they are in the right. Both sides will not stop because they believe they are in the right. Both sides have politicians who are self serving and care only for the bottom line of their careers, not the soldiers they put in harms way.

I am patriotic. I believe in my country. But I also believe our time in Iraq should be coming to an end. Our soldiers are tired. They are stretched too thin with the deployments. They are fighting the same resistence they started fighting in 2003. They are missing the growing up of their children. And yes, they are dying. If they don't die physically in the field, they come home injured mentally or physically to a lack of medical care and benefits and in some cases a community that doesn't respect what they do. When are the politicians going to put aside their party differences and come together to get the troops out? They can't agree on even that.

I have to agree with PottyHead here. In a normal case I would say that Violence should be implemented to teach the Terrorists and criminals a lesson, but the case is a little different here. Like I said before President Bush have been using the whole War Against Terror as a dreadful excuse to eliminate his rivals and other Middle East countries. Nevillesgirl I agree with you when you say that America didn't form terror groups against The Middle East countries. Nor did She start bombard the Countries, but the Government did. We are not generalizing all Americans here but it is centered to the Government. I agree that there is formation of harsh Extremist Terrorist groups in the Middle East. Usama Bilaadin for one is a living example of it. And I also agree that President Bush as the President Of America has to take necessary steps against such terrorists. But he is doing the same thing which the terrorist groups are doing. I don't think The US government takes a safety check to see whether the poor Women and Children are out of the way before they attack. When they attacked Iraq they didn't just attack Government Headquarters did they? Lots of people had to suffer and same goes for Israel so We are all doing the same thing here. What, really must be done here is that the World Leaders like George. W. Bush should not retaliate in the forms of Mass destruction. But they should do the peace talk and they should only take steps against the terrorists not against the whole country and the masses. They should try and soften the Terrorists not harden their hearts more. Every time their is a bomb blast, several different kids get orphaned and homeless. It is these kids who turn out to be the terrorists.
If you had to choose between sacrificing the life of ten American soldiers or one Iraqi child, who would you choose? Why?
I do not wish to speak about this matter much as It might Lead to conflict. All I have got to sat is that the American Soldiers know that they are walking into war when they join the Army. They know what they are getting into. They are all grown up, Military minded adults. If I am put in such a disastrous position I will chose the life of the innocent Iraqi kid, who probably didn't know what hit him. I sympathize a lot for the Wives and Kids of the poor American Soldiers and I would never wish to be in such a situation but if i am pushed into such a situation that's what i will do. If what you say is right, Nevillesgirl, and If Iraqi kids are armed and all, can you seriously blame them? Its not their fault their country is ripped apart and they are torn away from their families. The blame rests on the shoulders of one George. W Bush. Even if they are armed they wont stand a chance against the American Soldiers. They don't have to be in the battle field for God's sake. So that's my opinion on the situation
Please forgive me if my words offend any of you

Aaiz

Edit: Right, so that whole other part of the post was something my sister typed up because she needed to vent from reading some of the posts on here. So, to be nice I posted it, and now I'm taking it off because it's so pointless to argue this. It isn't a discussion anymore, it's annoying, redundant, repetitive pointlessness.

I gave up trying to discuss this topic quite a while ago due to that fact that I was continuously being misunderstood and taken out of context. Some people just can’t take things in a hypothetical - figurative sense and stretch it all out of proportion by taking it literally. I suppose I can go ahead and clear up somethings in my last post as well though.

I was not saying that the BBC was untrustworthy. I was saying that the media in general is untrustworthy. It makes things worse than it appears and stretches things all out of proportion based on their political views. A lot of people don't read between the lines nor do they make their own conclusions about it, they take what is said at face value. When people learn to think for themselves, the world will be a much better place.

I'm at the end of my thread with the world in general, basically, and find myself thinking more often than not that I really hope the world ends in 2012. Or that the stupid land of holiness - Mesopotamia: The land between the rivers!~ and all that other crap would disappear. Religion is so troublesome. People are annoying.

~ihkny

Sorry, but seriously, anyone who would support Bush's war in Iraq is uninformed in a major way, and from what I can see, prefers to remain ignorant.

The problem so many of us have with President Bush isn't because he's 'fighting terrorists,' but that he began a pre-emptive war on a country that had done nothing to threaten us, and his reasoning for this war was entirely based upon LIES. He knew he was lying. He did it anyhow, because he wanted to attack Iraq. He had another country's leader executed in the middle of a war he started on LIES. Perhaps this is what Aaiz meant when he said Bush was no different than a terrorist.

Why should anyone in the world have any respect for us whatsoever when our own President cannot even be trusted to keep his armies where they belong--at home, or in countries that represent a direct threat--like...Saudi Arabia, perhaps, where Osama bin Laden came from?

I'm just saying.

President Bush has a right to lead us into war with a nation that has harmed us. He does not have a right to enter a sovereign nation on trumped-up LIES in order to settle a score. I do not understand anyone's need to defend a proven LIAR--whose lies have caused thousands upon thousands of deaths and stretched our military to the breaking point. Don't you see--when he invades another country without a valid reason, then we become the terrorists!

"I wish that we could all live in peace. I wish that they would mind their own business and leave everyone else alone."

--I'll tell you something--America would have been a whole heckuva lot better off if President George W. Bush had followed your advice and left Iraq alone! So yeah, I will blame him. The buck stops with him. He certainly has been very talented at using that excuse when it's something he wants ("I'm the Decider"), he should also accept it when it makes him look bad. I'm sick of all this flag-waving when we've done something so heinous to another country that people the world over despise us. There's no excuse. There never was, no matter how Bush tried to spin it. It was a horrible mistake and it's cost us dearly--in our wounded and killed soldiers, our war debt, our economy, and our reputation in the world.

Amanda--Nevillesgirl, I thought your post was very eloquent, and a unique perspective from a family member of one of our troops. I too wish we could not be using our armed forces in places they don't need to be, fighting an 'enemy' that never harmed us until we invaded their country.

Yes. That's exactly what i meant Aethonon. President Bush is an educated man who knows whats right from what's wrong. And such men shouldn't destroy an entire nation for a pack of wannabe terrorists who are military sophisticated guys with harsh and extremist religious beliefs. I have to disagree with you when you say that Bush should invade a country providing a direct threat. I don't think Anyone should invade the others countries if it isn't in extreme circumstances. What we need is Peace not war. It was actually the plan of his father George Bush on which the Junior is building on. The Senior Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of Saddam's dictatorship or so he said. I agree, Saddam is a dictator and maybe one of the worst ever. But is it fair that a whole nation suffers because of his crimes. Is it fair that all those children becomes orphan, wives widowed, people homeless just because of one person. I might be mistaken just as much as the next guy but I don't think so. Personally I think All Bush wanted when he invaded Iraq was the oil mimes.

I guess I thought a direct threat was an extreme circumstance. Such as one country bombing another's military bases, or such. The idea that Iraq might have had WMDs wasn't even a good enough excuse, had it been true!

In a perfect world, no one would ever be in a war. But we don't have a perfect world, and as long as our world society operates from a rule of scarcity, supply, and demand, we will have wars. As long as we are misguided by ignorance and religious extremism, we will have violence. As long as we are consumed by greed, we will have revolution, as those left without rise up to seize their share.

I remember reading someplece that in all of recorded history, there has never even been one year in which there wasn't a war being fought someplace in the world. It's a pretty sad testament to the human race.

Oh my God! Is that true? It is so sad and pathetic! What kind of a race are we to let things like that happen? I can understand why we needed wars back in 1800s, since violence seemed to be the only way of protecting one's territory, one's culture and customs. However, I don't understand why we still need them. Everything is set up now. Sad but true, there are other non-violent ways of controlling a country. I'm not saying that this is good or acceptable, but it is better manipulating people than killing them, spilling more human blood for..what? Power? And in the end, shouldn't we let everyone alone? Suppression leads to revolution, which leads to violence, which can only be dealt with with more violence. It's a vicious circle.

ihkny, there is no need to get upset. Noone is attacking you. We are arguing against your points, but this doesn't mean we try to change your mind or offend you. I agree with the point you made on media: yes, they often manipulate the mass, which is why we should search for more than one sources and be skeptical whatever we might read or hear. The problem is deeper than religion. It is human weakness in various forms.

You are right there Aethonon but I fear, that such attacks might result in a Third World War. If such a thing happens it might as well lead to the complete destruction of our planet. I mean we all know that the Second World War nearly did that. And I might be woefully ignorant but how does Saudi Arabia become a threat to America. I think Biladin is a military sophisticated extremist but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is that way. And Saudi Arabia will also have innocent kids and women who doesn't deserve to be bombarded. Wars happen. But that doesn't mean we should encourage it. If it is something which is just natural for our race then also we should try to decrease the rate of wars. If there are continuous wars how will there be peace? Even if a war does occur now and then we should try to stop it.
When Bush attacked Iraq and when he attacked Afghanistan everyone were with him. Almost no other country opposed him. That's why only the poor Iraqis were the only people who were damaged but if a day comes that Bush or someone else from another country, for the matter, decides to Oppose another country who has other World powers with them, then It would leave to a major war. So such things should be reduced if not prevented completely
No offense

Aaiz

I was teasing about Saudi Arabia, Aaiz, that's why I put in this------>

I was just saying that if we were going to invade a country, why not invade one where we know some of our 9/11 terrorists came from, instead of Iraq, where none of them came from? But that doesn't mean I actually think we should, ok?

The whole point of this whole area of the forum is to have open discussions or debate the goings on in the world. That does mean however, that other members will not necessarily agree with your point of view.

I do not know what you wrote, or your sister wrote in the original post but obviously the opinion was not shared by everyone. Do not take offence at that or in fact offend others because you do not share their opinions.

I have my own opinions about this that do not agree nor disagree with everyone. I cannot articulate myself as well as others and for me,. that's reason enough not to get involved in a debate.

There's an old saying and I think it applies here with regard to this...If you can't stand the heat...stay out of the kitchen.

Please, let's keep this conversation civilised. It is acceptable having different views than someone else. It is also acceptable supporting your opinions. However, what we do not like is personal attack and offending members. The Great Hall has serious topics, and that's why we accept certain members: because we think they can handle the conversation and the debates in it.

As Elaine said, if you can not find a way to properly express yourselves, it'd be wiser to stay away from it. Let's keep this as a reminder for all of us. Just a side note.



Now, I think that Darcy said exactly what I was trying to say. If there is a country to be blamed, it should be the one that caused the problem. And in any case, involving innocents is unacceptable. But as long as politicians (and every behind-the-scenes man) find support among the public, they will continue to do so. The only thing that's bothering me is that there aren't really any good politicians who will honor their duties and position. They say that true power comes to those who don't seek for it, for they are the ones who will use it wisely. I wish this was the case for the people who rule our countries...and our life.

First off, I'd like to issue an official apology to anyone that may have been offended by my previous post. I'm not sure which part was hostile or offensive besides perhaps where I was saying in general humans are annoying, and that is just my opinion. If you feel I was personally calling you(in general, no specifics - I have to clear these things up so they aren't misunderstood.) annoying, please do not take it this way. That post was made in exasperation for many things besides just what was going on in this thread, and therefore I meant no hostility towards anyone.



I realize that is the point of this forum, but I felt that the recent question's responses had evolved into not debate and discussion, but repetitive arguing - in which case it was no longer a debate. I know it means that we will not always agree, but someone continuously nitpicking at my post and forcing me to repeat myself became bothersome after the first few times and so I finally decided to drop it, because we were not going to succeed in making one understand and the other to change their point of view. I was also misunderstood numerous times:

Example: I did not say the BBC was untrustworthy at any point, I said the news in general was untrustworthy.

To me, it was as if I was being personally attacked, because things were being shoved into my mouth I had never said and making me look like a bad person.



It is not the heat I can not stand, it is something else completely. I understand what you mean though.

So, once again, I reiterate so I do not have to repeat this againl, I do not mean to come off as hostile or offensive, and I am apologizing to those of you I may have offended. I can not see you as you type your posts and you can not see me, so it may be safe to say... take everything posted with a grain of salt and do not be offended by it, let it roll off your back and ignore it if you feel someone's post is coming off as offensive and hostile. My sister can tell you that even in real life I come off that way and I can assure you I do not mean it that way at all, it is just how I am, very blunt and oblivious to how things sound when I say them.

To end this I'll say: You may be right, the war may have been a complete waste of time and Bush may be a complete idiot. Then again, you may be wrong.

~ihkny

I'm sure you're all going to love me for this, but I'm closing down this thread. It's currently under investigation.


The Great Hall is supposed to be a place where people can go to debate certain more mature topics logically and without resorting to offensive, derogatory behavior. From what I've witnessed in this thread, it's time everyone took a step back and a few deep breaths.

This thread discusses a pretty intense issue, and as such, it's one that gets emotions going and sometimes we get hot under the collar about it. It's why I generally stay away from it. I know my limits, and I know my beliefs on the matter.

So, this thread is closed for a while if not permanently. If you have anything that you feel needs to be looked at or addressed, please PM it to me.