Heavyarms Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 They have at least freed a people that needed to be freed. No one can deny it: the parades, the stealing from palaces, the blowing the nuts out of saddam statues, pulling em down... The support for America in this time is astronomical. I have never seen arabs celebrating with flags before. Nothing better could have happened, besides no one dying. This war was quick, the outcome that was wanted was desired. They are free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, another people are free at last! And to those skeptics, learn all the facts, not just what al-jazeera feeds people. (from a speech of Martin Luther King jr.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 But the problem is that what you mention is only one side of the case. The other side is based on hate, agression and the feeling of being humiliated. Much of the US media prefers to show the side you mentions. Most Iraqi media prefers to show the other side. Neither of them are entirely truthful. You have a few hundreds of people celebrating, and the city consists of 10 million population. I think that says enough. Also: Where the hell are the WoMDs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted April 10, 2003 Author Share Posted April 10, 2003 *off topic* remember the canisters that were rigged to explode when opened but contained material? but anyways, there's only 5 million people in baghdad, and that looked like a lot of people on TV. but anyways, it happened in afghanistan: people cut their beards, women walked around with no headcoverings... Some people need to look at america from a helping hand, not a burning fist that wants to burn someone's eye out of their head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Slightly off-topic, but I just wondered something: If US simply cares about other countries, then why is it that they have the lowest percentage of the national economy that goes to foreign aid of all western countries? Just wondering, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by Breton Slightly off-topic, but I just wondered something: If US simply cares about other countries, then why is it that they have the lowest percentage of the national economy that goes to foreign aid of all western countries? Just wondering, that's all. Where did you get that information? Just wondering, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Uh.. right. The support for America in this time is astronomical. I have never seen arabs celebrating with flags before. Flags.. that's just another way of celebrating. The reason why they celebrated that way was probably that they knew the people who freed them celebrated that way. And to those skeptics, learn all the facts, not just what al-jazeera feeds people. Oh, so if I don't believe in the war in Iraq, I've watched too much Al-Jazeera . I find it pretty childish of you to try to make me sound like I'm not worthy of giving an opinion instead of giving counter-arguments, IMO. "Oh, someone disagrees. I'll just call him Iraqi-friendly instead of debating". Seriously, this is a forum for debate:p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Breton Slightly off-topic, but I just wondered something: If US simply cares about other countries, then why is it that they have the lowest percentage of the national economy that goes to foreign aid of all western countries? Just wondering, that's all. i'd like to see this # and it's source. I think our lower % # still beats most if not all other countries higher % #'s since our economy pretty much embarasses the rest of the world's. example, 10% of 1,000,000 is higher than 50% of 100,000. it's a lower % but a higher total amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Breton But the problem is that what you mention is only one side of the case. The other side is based on hate, agression and the feeling of being humiliated. Much of the US media prefers to show the side you mentions. Most Iraqi media prefers to show the other side. Neither of them are entirely truthful. You have a few hundreds of people celebrating, and the city consists of 10 million population. I think that says enough. Also: Where the hell are the WoMDs? Well, most of the city fled right before the bombing... Also, it was ony the capital that was liberated so far. You didn't exactly see all these people running up to defend Saddam and his regime either... call it hate for Saddam more than love of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 You didn't exactly see all these people running up to defend Saddam and his regime either... call it hate for Saddam more than love of the US For some reason I didn't expect to see these unarmed people storm at the US tanks . "The Americans are coming, let's... uh, run them down with our cattle!" Where the hell are the WoMDs? Apart from this one small storage facility they found, and the, perhaps, 10 missiles the UN inspectors found and dismantled... good question. Face it: If Saddam really wanted to invade the Middle East again, he would have used the weapons he was allowed to have. He's got more of those, meaning he could do more damage. The two reasons why this war happened was hate and fear. Yes, you have all those arguments, but the reason why you acted this way based on those arguments are because you're afraid and hate Saddam. This no longer has anything to do with [the recent terrorist attack]. Now it's about fear; Your fear of our armed forces; Our fear of your terrorists; [Our leader's] fear of being weak, of making mistakes; both sides' fear of the other guy who built those goddamned bombs in the first place!! -Tom Clancy, The sum of all fears I agree, though, the USA freed the people of Iraq. Still, I believe a war was "a bit" too drastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 still, even if we did, I'd rather free one person than to let a dictator continue his rule and kill another. Sacrifices must be made; it is not my decision to make. And I just used al-jazeera cuz you seem very negative about everything, kinda like that news network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms *off topic* remember the canisters that were rigged to explode when opened but contained material? but anyways, there's only 5 million people in baghdad, and that looked like a lot of people on TV. but anyways, it happened in afghanistan: people cut their beards, women walked around with no headcoverings... Some people need to look at america from a helping hand, not a burning fist that wants to burn someone's eye out of their head. Well see Afghanistan was somewhat different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by krkode Where did you get that information? Just wondering, that's all. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 The US has the largest economy (or one of the largest, not sure) The US gives its share, maybe not in percentage, but in actual dollars, it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I agree with what someone else said before about the US being richer so therefore it's percentage is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I agree with what CrazyDog agrees with. That fact basically leads to a higher standard of living in America... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 The Netherlands have about 16 million population. Yet they give nearly a third of what US gives. And what about Scandinavia? They have a total of about 18 million population, yet they give about 40% of the total US foreign aid. And Scandinavia is known for its high standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Okay, Scandinavia and the Nederlands care more about the world than the USA does. So what is that proving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 make those conversions to dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 people cut their beards, women walked around with no headcoverings... That just makes me sad. "Yay, we're liberated, let's throw our religion away because these people say it's wrong". Stupid, saddening, assimilation. What you need to realise is that many Muslims do not feel oppressed covering their hair more than Americans feel oppressed because they can't tan themselves without bras on. Heck, even in the USA you see Muslims covering their hair. Why do they still do it when they don't have to, if they hate it so much? For example, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GDP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world. And GDP can't be converted to dollars. ANYWAY, just that the USA gives less doesn't have to mean they care less. The USA can accomplish more by giving 0.2 percent than Norway can by giving 0.5 percent, simply because they are a country with more money totally. And my main point: The USA needs to be less biased. Fine, we were shown pics of people celebrating, and maybe the majority is celebrating. BUT why aren't we shown both sides? Why can't the stations broadcast images of dead American soldiers (they could blur out their faces so that they wouldn't be identificable), grieving Iraqi families whose friends have been killed, and so on? And the way they protect the privacy of all these soldiers so much... why can't they always be that way? Normally, the media of most nations don't care less about peoples' privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Fine, we were shown pics of people celebrating, and maybe the majority is celebrating. BUT why aren't we shown both sides? Why can't the stations broadcast images of dead American soldiers (they could blur out their faces so that they wouldn't be identificable), grieving Iraqi families whose friends have been killed, and so on? Because people don't like to see that stuff, and the media usually doesn't show what people don't like to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 people cut their beards, women walked around with no headcoverings... Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle That just makes me sad. "Yay, we're liberated, let's throw our religion away because these people say it's wrong". Stupid, saddening, assimilation. What you need to realise is that many Muslims do not feel oppressed covering their hair more than Americans feel oppressed because they can't tan themselves without bras on. Heck, even in the USA you see Muslims covering their hair. Why do they still do it when they don't have to, if they hate it so much? Well, first of all he said women. The women in Afghanistan were very oppressed... they could barely show their eyes because the men made them cover up. The punishments they faced if not obiding to their obsurd rules severe. The beards had something to do with their length. I'm not sure if they were mandatory or not. I think it was more of, if you didn't have one you weren't thought highly of by high ranking officials though. There's a lot of symbolism with the face and it's features in the Arabworld. I'm not familiar with all of it, other than the length and something about it being bad to wish a curse upon someone's mustache... not kidding... happened at a UN meeting a few weeks ago! Who the hell was talking about hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 it's also a very strict islamic custom, they kept it so if you didn't you were beaten. Now, I feel the US has liberated; good. Now, we need some order here, although they should be able to keep it themselves. This is tough; you might feel like the police in Baghdad soon, and everyone hates you, or things will calm down, and they take care of themselves. They have partially started to, anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 and, umm... GDP can be converted... I think it's called the GNP... I could be wrong, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 OT: Because people don't like to see that stuff, and the media usually doesn't show what people don't like to see... The media is supposed to be objective, that's the whole idea. Show an equal amount of both sides' opinions. First thing we learned about journalism when we made a newspaper in elementary school (say again, elementary school. See? Basic knowledge): "Never use the words 'I think'". Otherwise.. well, I don't call that democratic, just Greed>Quality. Again . If all channels were objective, people would still watch TV. They'd just watch the news that portrayed the objective news with the best quality. Tell me: Why's that bad? Oh, and since when did the media, especially people, care about the people anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 They just want to be the most watched. The media is supposed to be objective, that's the whole idea. Don't tell me. Tell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.