The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Chris Misfit]

To be fair, reagrding the original article: If you go onto the BNPs website you'll find a letter written by a jew from Germany during Hitlers reign, stating that the Nazis were a nice bunch of friendly people who helped spread joy throughout germany.

You'll find anything you want online.

[loretian]

To be fair, reagrding the original article: If you go onto the BNPs website you'll find a letter written by a jew from Germany during Hitlers reign, stating that the Nazis were a nice bunch of friendly people who helped spread joy throughout germany.

You'll find anything you want online.

True, but this was an article from the Sacramento Bee.   I'm not saying their the epitomy of journalism excellence, but this isn't just something "I dug up online", it's from a reputable source.

[Mattman]

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, I think that in a lot of ways things for women in Iraq are WORSE right now, broadly speaking.? In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there was actually a relatively high percentage of women who were teachers, doctors, etc.? Probably because it was a more secular government, whereas now radical Islamic ideas are spreading throughout Iraq (so much for stopping the spread of terrorism, eh, Dubya?)

One recent development in post-Saddam Iraq, as chronicled in a recent story in TIME magazine, is the rise in "honour killings".? Basically, women who have sex before marriage, or outside of marriage, or are raped, are killed by their fathers, brothers, or sons in order to preserve the family's "honour".? This has been the most horrifying development for me...I can't believe anybody would be that retarded, putting their bullshit "honour" before the lives of their female siblings.? Say what you will, but radical Islamic dogma is really fucked up, and so are the people who accept it in thier daily lives.

Article on women in Saddam-era Iraq:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/iraq/a/iraqi_women.htm

Article on recent surge of "honour killings" in post-Saddam Iraq:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5961

[D]

the Iraqi people will be some of the richest most thriving people in the world.

Think about all that oil. they will be an enormous big time country once the right people control the oil, they will automatically be a top exporter. They will never be as technologically advanced as say Japan but they have a very precious commodity that everyone needs.

[axls_locomotive]

This will be my only post on this topic.  The war was not about oil.  I'll say it again and again and again.  Our oil prices are through the roof.  They've been for a year now.  Logic says that if it were about oil, we would have significantly lower prices.  I won't get into the rest of the debate, but I just wanted to make my point on that clear.

your logic is faulty...the oil rich buddies of mr bush wouldnt be concerned with oil prices, they would be more concerned with control of oil sources...far more valuable an asset imo

[Danny]

your logic is faulty...the oil rich buddies of mr bush wouldnt be concerned with oil prices, they would be more concerned with control of oil sources...far more valuable an asset imo

YOUR logic is faulty, pal.  The oil companies already have their sources for oil.  The fields in Iraq aren't going to be just handed over to them...why would they be.  And why don't you wait untill that actually happens, instead of just predicting that it's going to and bitching about it.  The fields are the property of the people of Iraq.  If anything, Bush'd oil-rich buddies should be unhappy about the competition.

Regardless, why the hell would Bush want to help his "oil rich buddies"?  What does he have to gain?  I just absolutely do NOT get the logic behind this.

[Danny]

OK, I'm sorry but this is a bit off-topic.? My wife just thought of something while watching the sad news about the hostages in Iraq.? I thought I would bring it up here and see if anyone has an answer for us.

Why don't we just give all of the people working in Iraq (civillian contracted workers and such) watches (or something they can wear) equipped with GPS?

Anyone have any idea?


-B

[axls_locomotive]

your logic is faulty...the oil rich buddies of mr bush wouldnt be concerned with oil prices, they would be more concerned with control of oil sources...far more valuable an asset imo

YOUR logic is faulty, pal.  The oil companies already have their sources for oil.  The fields in Iraq aren't going to be just handed over to them...why would they be.  And why don't you wait untill that actually happens, instead of just predicting that it's going to and bitching about it.  The fields are the property of the people of Iraq.  If anything, Bush'd oil-rich buddies should be unhappy about the competition.

Regardless, why the hell would Bush want to help his "oil rich buddies"?  What does he have to gain?  I just absolutely do NOT get the logic behind this.

who do you think has control of production?...where are the profits going?...i see little improvement anywhere so where is all that money going.....iraq oil fields are some of the largest in the world btw...thats what they have to gain...pal

[Danny]

No no no.  You misunderstood.  What does BUSH specifically have to gain?

[SLCPUNK]

the Iraqi people will be some of the richest most thriving people in the world.

D, with all due respect, where are you getting this from?

Why do you think this?

They have so many people rushing in there now to get a piece of that place....it is not going to be a democractic place anytime soon, much less a thriving place.....

[D]

im not sayin next week or even next year, but in time when all of this is over.

I was watching Back to the Future part 3 the other night and when they were readin the letter that Doc from 1885 wrote to tell the Doc in 1955 how to fix the time machine, i remember Doc seein the part was made in Japan and said "no wonder it didnt work, its made in Japan"

30 years from now, who knows what kind of country Iraq will be.


My point is, sure it's gonna be very very tough to convert people to a new way of life. They are use to things being a certain way and there are many people who dont wanna change cause change is scary for everyone, but when/if they change, they are already a top exporter of oil, which every country has to have.

If the Iraqi people get control of their oil and they are able to profit from their oil, how can they not be a rich,thriving country?

It has nothing to do with Bush, like i said im more than likely gonna vote for kerry unless he totally loses me in the debates,  it's the fact that millions of these people now have a chance to dream and make something of themselves that was before not possible.  I think thats great.

[axls_locomotive]

No no no.  You misunderstood.  What does BUSH specifically have to gain?

backhanders, money, party donations, promotion, nepotism, more power for his friends, etc

[SLCPUNK]

im not sayin next week or even next year, but in time when all of this is over.

I was watching Back to the Future part 3 the other night and when they were readin the letter that Doc from 1885 wrote to tell the Doc in 1955 how to fix the time machine, i remember Doc seein the part was made in Japan and said "no wonder it didnt work, its made in Japan"

30 years from now, who knows what kind of country Iraq will be.


My point is, sure it's gonna be very very tough to convert people to a new way of life. They are use to things being a certain way and there are many people who dont wanna change cause change is scary for everyone, but when/if they change, they are already a top exporter of oil, which every country has to have.

If the Iraqi people get control of their oil and they are able to profit from their oil, how can they not be a rich,thriving country?

It has nothing to do with Bush, like i said im more than likely gonna vote for kerry unless he totally loses me in the debates,? it's the fact that millions of these people now have a chance to dream and make something of themselves that was before not possible.? I think thats great.

I understand this, and I think it's great too....just not realistic.

Sorry bro.

[ClintroN]

the one who brings peace to planet Earth is the anti-christ.........beware

[GnRNightrain]

No no no.? You misunderstood.? What does BUSH specifically have to gain?

backhanders, money, party donations, promotion, nepotism, more power for his friends, etc

Thats sad, that this is the view overseas.  It is flat out wrong, and I dont know how you get such notions.  Perhaps it is our fault for not trying to get an equal voice in your media.  I know for instance in Canada, they wont even let stations such as Foxnews be there.

[SLCPUNK]

No no no.? You misunderstood.? What does BUSH specifically have to gain?

backhanders, money, party donations, promotion, nepotism, more power for his friends, etc

Thats sad, that this is the view overseas.? It is flat out wrong, and I dont know how you get such notions.? Perhaps it is our fault for not trying to get an equal voice in your media.? I know for instance in Canada, they wont even let stations such as Foxnews be there.

What is flat out wrong? That corporate contributions to political parties (both sides) lean on the choices a president makes? You think this a view of the the rest of the world, which you also consider stupid?

[GnRNightrain]

No no no.? You misunderstood.? What does BUSH specifically have to gain?

backhanders, money, party donations, promotion, nepotism, more power for his friends, etc

Thats sad, that this is the view overseas.? It is flat out wrong, and I dont know how you get such notions.? Perhaps it is our fault for not trying to get an equal voice in your media.? I know for instance in Canada, they wont even let stations such as Foxnews be there.

What is flat out wrong? That corporate contributions to political parties (both sides) lean on the choices a president makes? You think this a view of the the rest of the world, which you also consider stupid?

Dont put words into my mouth, I never said the rest of the world was stupid.  I just dont have the "presumption" that the US is always wrong or doing evil things as you do.  Sure there are interest groups, but a President is not going to take a country to war to add to his millions or dollars and make money for his friends.  I know you hate Bush and think he is an evil man, but there is nothing that you can show that can prove this or anything that would make one think he had such a motivation.

[Mattman]

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, I think that in a lot of ways things for women in Iraq are WORSE right now, broadly speaking.? In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there was actually a relatively high percentage of women who were teachers, doctors, etc.? Probably because it was a more secular government, whereas now radical Islamic ideas are spreading throughout Iraq (so much for stopping the spread of terrorism, eh, Dubya?)

One recent development in post-Saddam Iraq, as chronicled in a recent story in TIME magazine, is the rise in "honour killings".? Basically, women who have sex before marriage, or outside of marriage, or are raped, are killed by their fathers, brothers, or sons in order to preserve the family's "honour".? This has been the most horrifying development for me...I can't believe anybody would be that retarded, putting their bullshit "honour" before the lives of their female siblings.? Say what you will, but radical Islamic dogma is really fucked up, and so are the people who accept it in thier daily lives.

Article on women in Saddam-era Iraq:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/iraq/a/iraqi_women.htm

Article on recent surge of "honour killings" in post-Saddam Iraq:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5961

No matter what happens, all threads eventually end up talking about the same old bullshit.

I thought this was the "Iraqi Women Opinions" thread.

[axls_locomotive]

No no no.  You misunderstood.  What does BUSH specifically have to gain?

backhanders, money, party donations, promotion, nepotism, more power for his friends, etc

Thats sad, that this is the view overseas.  It is flat out wrong, and I dont know how you get such notions.  Perhaps it is our fault for not trying to get an equal voice in your media.  I know for instance in Canada, they wont even let stations such as Foxnews be there.

i dont think so....often its people who watch relationships who know more than the people in the relationship...

ive seen fox news, yes its more biased than you probably think it is....canada is right to remove it from its programming

im sorry that you cant accept the truth rather than put the blame on something else...the bbc is probably one of the least biased news stations in the world as its funded by the people...unlike the few corporations who fund all radio and tv stations in the usa as well as presidents and their underlings, i can see it, and just about everyone can see it outside of the USA...

[loretian]

im sorry that you cant accept the truth rather than put the blame on something else...the bbc is probably one of the least biased news stations in the world as its funded by the people...unlike the few corporations who fund all radio and tv stations in the usa as well as presidents and their underlings, i can see it, and just about everyone can see it outside of the USA...

I'm sorry, but that's absurd.  The BBC is just as bad as the New York Times.  Of course, it's funny, the liberals see Fox News as being biased, and the conservatives see everything else as being biased.

Except, according to a recent poll by Gallop, nearly 50% of the conservatives in America feel that way, while only 15% or so of the liberals feel that way on their end.

As for evidence?  Rathergate?   A major, major figurehead of American news (one of the top three, arguably) just got busted trying to pass of memo's which attacked one candidate, and the producer of the show, who has spent much time writing and producing stories that also attack that candidate, met with that canddiate's opponent shortly before running the story.

Hrmmm....... smoking gun?