Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Kismit

The first casuallty of war?

30 posts in this topic

You are joking aren't you Kismit? These are articles from the Pravda, after all. You know, the Russians. The Russians have so much to gain for Iraq not to be attacked and the embargo lifted, and will lose out on billions of dollars of unpaid debt from Iraq. These biased articled wouldn't be worth the time to show on the news, because their lies are designed to persuade public opinion for a financial gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a joke Homer . as somebody who has lived away from there own home for a long time it is very itnteresting to see how the news is filltered and altered to suit popular opinion and increase ratings. The U.N itself has claimed that there is no evidence to support Saddam Hussein is creating weapons of mass destruction.The only real evidence Georg Bush seems to have come up with is from a source he isn't at liberty to name. I think that in itself is a little odd,and please don't take offence but looking from a different perspective outside of America it is easy to see that Geoerge Bush has an invested interest in controlling more of the worlds oil supply. Don't get me wrong  I think that the people who are responsible for acts of terrorism should be hung, drawn and quarted, but wars don't usually hurt the actuall people who are responsible for the crime . Instead they tear famillies appart , and kill and maim the Innocent . I  have sat back and watched the Australian and Newzealand governments claim to have libberated Indonesia and demonstrate what wonderfull people they are knowing full well that they where responsible for  starting the problems there , but that dosen't make it to the news now does it . Propaganda  is found on all sides of all wars . The first casuallty of war is allways the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kismit,

The U.N. claiming there is no real evidence is in fact evidence of how cowardly the U.N. really is. Kofi Annan is an absolute disgrace to the U.N. and the world.

You think it's a little odd that George Bush and Tony Blair doesn't disclose all they know? Don't you understand that could compromise the source of the intelligence, thus possibly rendering that source obsolete? It's more important for the safety of the free world that governments learn all they can from these sources and deal with it appropriately, then it is for the free world to know the specifics of the source and the information they provide.

I know what you mean about war tearing families apart, and I agree with you there. But that is the nature of war. That's how war has always been fought, but that is no reason for a government to lie to it's citizens to persuade public opinion just because they are either too scared to fight for the good of the world, or too interested in their financial gain to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, i actually agree with Homer.

Pravda is the same news that runs all types of wacko stories- i think ive even seen them say 'elvis discovered on the moon' once.

i think Saddam Hussein has proven to be the jackass of the middle east. i don't believe in war, but he must be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow again! I agree with Homer and Dschwartz, nobody wants war but some people like Saddam Hussein just bring it on themselves and leave the rest of the world with no choice but to deal with them. Anyone who threatens to bombard other countries including his own with leathal chemicals which kill in such an awfull and agonising way deserves no sympathy. I have children and after seeing in the papers the pictures of those poor children in Iraq killed this way by chemicals in his experiments, I can think of no better way to dispose of this evil evil person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. I dont beleive Elvis went to the moon . I,m not really sure anyones been there but thats a completely different thread altogether .Here is a little something that wont of hit the news in America (wich affects Americans ) to try and demonstrate my point about the news being manipulated in each country to only show the stuff that makes ratings. In New Zealand we have had an anti Nuclear stance for over 20 years which means we will not allow any Nuclear waste weapons or even Nuclear powered vesels within our national waters, but George Bush has just declared that America will stop doing trade with New Zealand unless we change this. The timing is alittle ominus to say the leastI mean it's been more than 20 years ,Why now? ask yourselves. I really can't see why he is trying so hard to get nuclear access to NewZealand now and why he is trying so hard to make Allies with Australia which is one of the worlds biggest urranium minning countries in the world, I also think the Australian Government should be ashamed of them self . Who do they sell the Uranium to?, I can tell you this much they are not to choosy about whos buying the stuff .

I truly do not beleive that violence can mend a violent act . It,s like smaking your child for beating there sibling nobody learns anything except to do it harder next time so it's worth there while.

As for the fact that Saddam Husein was just voted back into power it's hardly an election if there is only 1 person running .

Of course the people love him they only get government run news They have nothing else to compare with the only true difference is that financially run news runs what we want to see and not what we need to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kismit- i totally agree with you that Bush is doing some bone-headed things. i don't like his policy much, and i think he goes to great extremes to p*** other countries off. hopefully this won't last much longer than the next election. i never accepted that he won the last one.

as for making allies with australia: i think maybe you are letting your local rivalries cloud your opinion of australia. as an american, i think that australia is one of our best allies in the world. they are in a very strategic location and they have supported us in many conflicts. also, our cultures are more similar than those of other nations.

this doesn't mean we value new zealand as any less of an ally. i believe the difference is simply due to Bush being president, in that environmental issues don't matter much to him.

(i found this off of Pravda too... thought you might get a kick out of it: http://english.pravda.ru/fun/2002/06/20/30791_.html)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC,

I don't pretend to know how the Iraqis feel about their leader, but aside from the so-called election, I believe the information given to journalists by the Iraqi people are based on fear.

Kismit,

As far as the Bush Administration stopping trade with New Zealand if it doesn't change it's 'nuclear free' policy, that simply isn't true. What you are refering to is the Bush Administrations goal to have a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand. The deal with New Zealand was thought to be concluded first, but New Zealands policy could prolong the agreement until after the agreement with Australia is concluded. So it has nothing to do with stopping trade. I do admire and respect New Zealands stance on nuclear energy, and would consider it unfortunate if the U.S. used that against them.

When you said "I truly do not beleive that violence can mend a violent act", that reminded me a lot of Neville Chamberlain, who's policy of appeasement steered Hitler in the direction that started World War 2.

As far as what makes it on the news, I'm not sure if this is known outside the U.S., but the vast majority of the media inside the U.S. is anti-Bush. Which is a little different, but not too unlike Pravda. Pravda is primarily controlled by the government, who manipulates the masses with lies. News organizations in the U.S. is controlled by rich private people or corporations who spread their personal view with the news. Since most of the media is controlled by liberal minded people like Ted Turner(CNN), liberal biased news is rampant in the U.S., and they don't speak kindly of President Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey . I'm really enjoying this debate .

Dswartz I was born and raised Australian I am still and hope to allways be an Australian citizen I love my country ,I just live in a different country and I deffinetly don't hold any negetive byass toward it . Allthough when I lived in Australia I was an acctive member of greenpeace ,only I found them a little to extreme for me. Part of being a member is getting provided with the information on toxic waste dumps ,nuclear test sites such as Maralinga and the updates on Uranium minning ,you know the kind of stuff,where is it mined ?, whats it used for?, and who's buying it?.What I wrote about Australia is a shamefull thing and I am saddened by the thought of it.

Now for something different last night I was watching the news and I heard that North Korea have addmited to owning and building Nuclear weapons , and it made me think...........

Can anybody actually tell me why George Bush wants to bomb Iraq? :s9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dszwarts That storie was hideous eeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww my poor moggys run and hid after reading that . sick B*s**rds yuck yuck yuck

O.K. point taken :s2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Homer I think youll find the fact the anti Nuclear treaty is even an Issue when it comes to a fair trade agreement , is a not so subtle political poke in the ribs , and the timming is still off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kismit,

The North Koreans never admitted to having nuclear weapons. What they admitted to was that they have not abandoned their nuclear weapons program. Everyone knew they had the program for many years, but under an agreement with the Clinton Administration, the North Koreans agreed to abandon the program for an economic gain through the American tax payer.

As far as Bush wanting to bomb Iraq, the reality is Bush wants to disarm Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and to install a new leader. The purpose is the threat that the Iraqi regime poses. Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against neighboring countries and even his own citizens without remorse. N. Korea is by far the weakest country in their region, militarily and economically. Although it's poor economy is preventing it's government from becoming very stable, N. Korea is quite a bit more stable than Iraq, and has a better history with it's neighbors.

You better believe the N. Korean issue will be dealt with, but this new revelation is no reason to delay the removal of the Iraqi threat. This, by the way, is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well , well , well It appears the news was reported somewhat differently in New Zealand.... Hmmmmm we where told that North Korea not only admitted to having but to making Nuclear weopons but then it dosen't make our priminister look like she has to do something about it does it now.

Mmmmm perhaps there is a reason why it was reported differently...

It appears today that George Bush is reconsidering a total attack on Iraq .I wonder why? Of course he can't appear to be backing down so he isn't rulling out an atack alltogether, it seems I still need more reasons for a war .Iraq has had and has been testing weapons of mass distruction for years in the form of biological weapons .So many countries have and test maybe don't manufacture maybe do manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Please humor me give me a reason as to why just Sadam Hussein (and I don,t trust him anymore than any one else , but thats not a good enough reason) and why just Iraq ?

I admit that the original article that started this thread was dodgy but I can,t shake the feeling that there is a hidden agenda here , it wouldn't be the first time that a government has had one , would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why Saddam Hussein? because we annihilated his army in 1991 and he signed a cease fire on our terms. now he chooses to defy all the same conditions that he agreed to when we stopped the slaughter. did you ever see the video from 'the highway of death'? we were killing his army so effectively that Bush Sr. thought world opinion would go against us if we continued, so we stopped the death for humanity's sake.

a lot of people here thought we should have continued to Baghdad then, but we chose peace instead. now its time to finish what should have been accomplished in 1991. its even more dangerous now, but no less necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. so what your saying is that he wants to finish something his Dad started 11 years ago. Forgive me if I am wrong but dosen't the Bush familly have quite an investment in the oil industry.

Just as a point of interest George Bush was discribed as a war monger by political annalysts over here during the American election campaign before any of the tragic events that took place on september 11.

I beleive Saddam is a nutcase and possibly cappable of anything . I know a few people like that my self but I wouldn,t risk the lives of innocent people to get rid of them and starting a war is only going to stir him up .

Whats that saying about poking a rattle snake with a stick?

Tell me did you see "Independence Day " That movie stole 2 hours from my life , you know the bit at the end when every country in the world was to stupid to think for themselves and had to wait for America to tell them what to do. In reality we have allies with America but our governments are clever enough to think for themselves and I don't see to many of them jumping on the band wagon.

I can't drop this one I still smell something wrong here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand your points, Kismit. i even thought the ending of Independence Day was cheeseball ;)

the thing is that George Bush Sr. did not start the Gulf War, Saddam did. there have been skirmishes since the cease fire was signed. i don't think GW Bush is trying to finish his dad's business, but rather doing what Clinton refused to do. Its a philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. Clinton tried to avoid the situation and chose to fire cruise missiles instead.

i like your rattlesnake reference. what if there is a rattlesnake sitting on a path you travel everyday? do you avoid it out of fear or do you try to get rid of it for good? Saddam is a rattlesnake on our path. we need oil and he is in the way of us getting it. that doesnt mean we need Iraq's oil, but he is a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia- whose oil our economy depends on. he has weapons that allow him to blackmail the region. weapons of mass destruction are quite a bargaining tool- especially considering his past actions. it is in our nation's interest to see a democratic and peaceful Iraq in place of Saddam's Iraq.

i can see the reasons you dislike my country and distrust our motives, but you can't judge a book by the cover. its not our fault most of the world watches our movies and inhales our culture without reading the warning label. there are idiots in Hollywood who create nonsense like that because some idiot will swallow it, but to be quite honest my wife and i laughed out loud at the assumption the world would be waiting for the americans to save them all. i thought it was especially nice that all the pilots around the earth were sitting in chairs with no motivation until we contacted them with morse code. they were so happy we had a plan! of course, i never swallowed that we could give the alien mother ship a 'virus' without knowing anything about their OS. i mean, doesnt the mother ship at least have Norton's Anti-Virus at the very least? seems like a seriously intense investment of productivity to leave such a weakness inherent in its design.

i don't think we really need allies to take down Saddam. we could conquer Iraq with an iron fist and rule it from Washington if we were so inclined. we make allies first because we want to show that we are not the thing you would accuse us of being. as hard as it is to believe, americans value peace and well-being much more than war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dshwartz I liked the way you used that rattle snake thing .Very effective ;D.

However I never said that I dislike America or that I don't trust the country as a whole , on the contrary ,as you pointed out earlier NewZealanders and Australian's have there rivalrys as an Australian living in Newzealand I have been personally judged many times for the action of the Australian government , it's sportspeople , and even it's entertainers . These experiences have taught me to veiw every single person as an individual.

Now back to that rattle snake...... ;)

If there is a rattlesnake in the middle of the road you travel everyday. Kill the B**ta*d but for heavens sake don't dont wipe out half the wild life with it.

P.S one crap movie out of Holly wood isn't a good enough reason to hold a grudge against a whole country. That would really contradict my whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the manufacturing of WMD and the use of the WMD are two entities unto themselves. Consider this if one country were to make these WMD would they profit from using them? Not really because you would be killing off your customers and potential buyers, not in the least inviting a likely attack to get rid of them.

We come to the use of WMD and I do think that Saddam would have used(if he did or didn't have them) them like he has used them in the past.

Going after the person or persons bent on using them should be of the highest priorities, simply because you never know what is going to happen. The best thing that could be done about countries that make them is through the UN and try to get some kind of embargo on it.

On a side note, Blackbird, healthy discussion shouldn't be considered a game of one upsmanship. It is a healthy and vital part of human relations that is needed for people to express themselves and get information to better understand a topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just though he tried to make some points about several things that things that either didn't happen or turned around to bite us later.

I never understood the reason for going in to Iraq(and no one try and suggest the trade center attack), when we knew so little about what we would find. I heard on the news that WMD, nuclear weapons, locals greeting us with flowers and gas prices going down all over the news. When we get there we find no WMD, no nuclear capabilities or attempts, the locals greet us alright...with car bombs and surprise attacks and I can't get a gallon of gas under $1.80. I never understood why we didn't ask more questions of our leaders and why I have to except the fact that I was lied to.huh.gif

And as far as arguing, the whole point of a arguement or discussion is to prove one person wrong and make a point and I think Kismit's points in the end proved to be correct. Arguing is one-upsmanship, its making a point that cannot be refutted by the arguing party...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the locals greet us alright...with car bombs and surprise attacks and I can't get a gallon of gas under $1.80

Blackbird, the locals did greet us with open arms, as it has been seen in every country on earth. The locals are not the ones taking shots at the coalition. Unfortunately, Iraq has very porous borders, and it's impossible to keep terrorists out without tighter security on the border. It's these terrorists that are creating the unstable and dangerous environment in Iraq, and not the locals. In fact, a new zogby poll has the majority of Iraqi's wanting a democratic country based on the American model. They want better protection from the coalition, but they don't hate the coalition. As far as the gas prices, it was never about the oil this time, so that point is irrelevant.

Also, you questioned why we went to war with Iraq. There are actually several threads related to this, and many interesting and heated debates. this thread is a very provocative and informative thread about that subject, and on page 3, I have 2 posts where I outline the moral and legal obligations for war.

This may not change your mind, but it should open your eyes as to why the majority of people disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can sum all this up in a few words:

some things are worth fighting for.

sure, its hard and we lose soldiers. that is war. things don't always turn out as planned but its still the right thing to do. i would hope to see the UN get more involved now so that our soldiers could come home for once in the past year or more, but i understand that we still may have to go it alone. in the end, this will be good for the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Bizzarro on this. But I have a differing theory altogether. I think Iraq has turned into a plot by the UN to discredit and destroy the US and Uk's reputations.

Look at the cahin of events.

The UN inspectors go to Iraq and tell us Iraq has them or could have them.

Colin Powell addresses the Un and the blocking moves by France and Germany begin. Then comes the war and suddenly no wmds are found.

Here's what I think Happened. The UN "inspectors" actaully helped Iraq destroy or hide the wmd's then may have taken Saddam to safety. (possibly Paris). Also they leaked us false intellegence to expose at a later date.

Then after the war ends and we cannot locate Sadam, wmds, or control the terror bombings the Un either comes in at the last minute or leaves it to us to deal with.

Either way Our downfall would make the US and UK seem unreliable and would open up large door for a UN agenda that could include Globalization.

It is very probable and looks to be true given events that are going on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.