Originally posted by Artoo
@ Qui-Gon

Hmmmmm, I see what you mean about bashing something that doesn't agree with you. (FoxNews)


A news channel is supposed to be neutral. FoxNews is biased, no one doubts about that.

The first victim of a war is the thruth.

Also as previously stated, 11 years... nothing was found, all of a sudden he has pressure put on him by the Coalition, and a few small things start to appear. Hmmmmmmmm... why didn't they appear before I ask you.

Let me remind you that the missiles weren't directly opposing 1441. They had a range below the premitted, but they could be modified for a longer range, wich is why they had to be destroyed.

Also if you think the UN inspectors were doing a good job, no less than 3 days ago, Coalition forces captured a "supposed" chemical weapons facility in southern Iraq. If they were doing such a good job, why didn't the inspectors find in 12 years what the Coalition forces took merely a week to get to.

Because this chemical weapon facility probably doesn't excist? Just think of it: The only ones who have reported this news are the Bush-friendly ones. There seemingly excists no footage or pictures from it. Why do you assume it excists when there is little that leads towards it?

And guess what the first thing coalition forces are doing when they get into areas like that? They are handing out food, water, and supplies to the needy.

But why do they need food anyway? Because there is war. And the Iraqis also very much dislike the way US is handing out the supplies. For one thing, there is too little of them. And the supply they have, they throw out to the Iraqis as if they were dogs, so that the people have to fight over the little food there is.

Have you heard of what is on the front page of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Front page articles talking about the horrors of the war. How the US troops are encountering fierce resistance. And also the Los Angeles Times printed an interview they had with a Saddam appointed translator in the city, how the war is sooo horrible, and things are sooo bad, and you know what was in the background of her picture? Coalition forces handing out supplies with people flocking to them.

They might as well have had an interview with the Saddam propaganda machine itself, can we at least sell them the space instead of letting them spread their propaganda for free?

So you think we should hear all that Bush has to say, but nothing that Saddam has to say? That is propaganda in itself, if you cannot hear two sides in a debate.

Can you really expect anyone to admit their own futility?

If the Iraqis weren't cooperating at all, he would have said so. Tell me one good reason not to belive him. Anyway, it's not only him, but over a hundred inspectors.

Of course he thought the inspections were working, because he has an inate desire to validate his own existance and job.

So you are saying he lied to the SC to keep his job? Riiiiight.......for your information, there is nothing that indicates that he and hundreds of others have lied to the SC. Their job isn't to disarm Saddam, their job is to see if he will disarm or not. They have absolutly nothing to gain by lying. There is, however, evidence that Colin Powell have lied to the SC. Much of the information he gave the SC has been proven false. And if it is that you say that Blix only care about his job, why is it then that he does not want to renew his contract?

Plus, he's clearly an anti-war advocate, he's said so many times in numerous interviews.

Gotten your information from FoxNews again, eh? Actually, Blix is neutral. He is critical against both parts, just as he should be.

Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him, especially on such a subjective matter?

Yes, for of serveral reasons:

1. He is neutral
2. There is no indications that he has lied. We have evidence that Saddam destroyed those missiles.
3. He has nothing to gain by lying.
4. He hasn't lied about weapon inspections in the past.
5. He critizises Iraq too, you know.
6. He is professional.

So now you can give me some good reason on why not to trust him ;)

First of all, Qui-Gon, i get my news from a variety of sources including ABC, CNN, and FoxNews, as well as my local newspaper. And i'm not basing what i said on Blix on any report on him, just on what i've heard in interviews. He clearly and directly stated that the war was uneccessary and unfortunate, and that he wishes he had more time, which of course he would because that's his job and he wants to be important and sucessful, and why shouldn't he?

Secondly, i never said he lied to the SC, i'm merely saying that you can't take his opinion on things as fact. He clearly has a bias towards himself and the inspection process, and is, IMO, overly optimistic about the process. His former boss, I heard in an interview on CNN, said that Blix was a "blind fool" and naive, as well as totally incompetant in finding weapons. No lie, that's from the mouth of a guy who worked with Blix for 40 years. Not a good thing when your long-time friend and boss says you are imcompetant, nor does it help your credibility.

Oh, and the chemical wepaons facility doesn't need to exist. Whether it does or not (which is still uncertain), the inspectors and the UN didn't even know about it. Now, this potential chemical weapons facility is in a Iraq and the inspectors don't even look at it? They were even in the city and didn't give it a second glance. Oh, and it's 180 acres, hardly mistakable. Even if it's not a facility, the fact that they didn't even check it proves the same thing--wepaons inspectors can never be fully effective over such a large area with an unwilling host.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
A news channel is supposed to be neutral. FoxNews is biased, no one doubts about that.

The first victim of a war is the thruth.
Have you seen or heard some of the lies being reported on the arabian networks? al-jazeera, iraqi tv etc... talk about a bunch of crap.

Could you explain how the fox news coverage is currently differing from cnn's or anyone else's right now?

A news channel is supposed to be neutral. FoxNews is biased, no one doubts about that.

The first victim of a war is the thruth.

Yes news channels are supposed to be neutral, but if you actually read my post you'd know that I said that NO news channel is neutral. All put their slant on it one way or another. It's what gets ratings.

And yes, sadly, as the liberal media has taught us, the first victim of the war is the truth. Our soldiers who advanced and fought bravely through the sandstorm that covered the region, were labeled as "Coalition troops encountered gruesome fighting in the region today. It's a sad, sad affair going on in Iraq." That is what you call slant.

Because this chemical weapon facility probably doesn't excist? Just think of it: The only ones who have reported this news are the Bush-friendly ones. There seemingly excists no footage or pictures from it. Why do you assume it excists when there is little that leads towards it?

No this one was from CNN actually, my dad insists on having it on primetime, the LIBERAL media. Un-Bush friendly. There are plenty of recon photos of it, I flipped to Foc and they did one of their recon map flybys of it, and there it was. Oh yes and the general which was in charge of this facility, he's talking to us. Apparently he's authorized to use chemical weapons. The question I ask you is, How can you use chemical weapons you don't have?

But why do they need food anyway? Because there is war. And the Iraqis also very much dislike the way US is handing out the supplies. For one thing, there is too little of them. And the supply they have, they throw out to the Iraqis as if they were dogs, so that the people have to fight over the little food there is.

Sounds just like a liberal, what would you rather us do, not give them anything at all? If I were a country not participating in relief efforts for the Iraqi citizens during the war, I'd shut-up concerning countries who are.

So you think we should hear all that Bush has to say, but nothing that Saddam has to say? That is propaganda in itself, if you cannot hear two sides in a debate.

No. Anything that comes out of his mouth is Propaganda, especially concerning the US. Actually listening to his would be propaganda in itself. There is no debate to war.

So you are saying he lied to the SC to keep his job? Riiiiight.......for your information, there is nothing that indicates that he and hundreds of others have lied to the SC. Their job isn't to disarm Saddam, their job is to see if he will disarm or not. They have absolutly nothing to gain by lying. There is, however, evidence that Colin Powell have lied to the SC. Much of the information he gave the SC has been proven false. And if it is that you say that Blix only care about his job, why is it then that he does not want to renew his contract?

He didn't lie, he just gave his opinion, which was severely biased in his favor. People generally like to have a purpose, if there are no more inspections, then he has no purpose, and therefore no job, and he slips out of the world spotlight. Who would want that?

Once again, I implore people to read each word in everyone else's post so as to be properly informed for your responses to statements.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
First of all, ... He clearly and directly stated that the war was uneccessary and unfortunate, and that he wishes he had more time, which of course he would because that's his job and he wants to be important and sucessful, and why shouldn't he?

Perhaps he thought there was still a mission to be accomplished and much left to do. Importance and success do fullfil the innate needs of status for many of us, but we cannot assume so in this case. It may well be that Blix genuinely believed he was doing the right thing.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Secondly, ... His former boss, I heard in an interview on CNN, said that Blix was a "blind fool" and naive, as well as totally incompetant in finding weapons. No lie, that's from the mouth of a guy who worked with Blix for 40 years. Not a good thing when your long-time friend and boss says you are imcompetant, nor does it help your credibility.

Actually, Blix worked for Per Ahlmark in 1960.... not necessarily for "40 years." Per Ahlmark is also a very dedicated sympathizer of the Jewish plight. That tends to make him a bit biased in matters concerning the fate of Saddam. Thus, making his comment invalid.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and the chemical wepaons facility doesn't need to exist. Whether it does or not (which is still uncertain), the inspectors and the UN didn't even know about it.

This is what CNN had to say on 3/24: "I will not confirm that report," said Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid. "We have an Iraqi general officer -- two Iraqi general officers -- that we have taken prisoner, and they are providing us with information."

This is what the As-Saliyah News Service in Qatar had to say on 3/27: AS-SALIYAH (Qatar) March 27 - One week into their campaign in Iraq, US and British forces have yet to uncover any weapons of mass destruction but remain convinced that such weapons are there and will be found.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Now, this potential chemical weapons facility is in a Iraq and the inspectors don't even look at it? They were even in the city and didn't give it a second glance. Oh, and it's 180 acres, hardly mistakable.

Easily understood. Iraq consists of 171,599 square miles of land. I would suggest that there are many hundreds of acres of land that go unseen in your own city/region. The inspectors can only operate under the intelligence they've received. Intelligence was one thing that they actually did not get a full picture of from the American sources since the Bush admin did not want them to succeed. If Blix and his crew were perceived as successful, then that would add to the reasons why not in going to war.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Even if it's not a facility, the fact that they didn't even check it proves the same thing--wepaons inspectors can never be fully effective over such a large area with an unwilling host.

We'll never know. But one thing is for sure: the precedent of preemptive strikes on non-democratic nation-states will be a spector not soon forgotten.

Originally posted by Artoo
Sounds just like a liberal, ...

And that sounds just like the facist, right-wing answer to those who disagree with republican ideaology.

There is nothing wrong with being "liberal." In fact, I challenge you to name a domestic program that has benefited society in America that wasn't initiated by a "liberal" adminstration.

Food and Drug admin, Social Security, Medicare, USDA, etc.

Originally posted by C'jais
Democracy and peace should be what's strived for, as it's proven time and time again that it's the two cores of a satisfied population.

I've got an interesting article on this exact subject, published by Scientific American (www.sciam.com). Unfortunately I can't seem to be able to find it on the www (but of course they don't put everything there, that would be very bad business). According to this article Soviet Scandinavistan (Scandinavia, including Iceland) was the happiest place on the planet...

Originally posted by C'jais
Thus, given this premise, the UN should not be dismissed.

The UN, in its current form is useless. It has failed miserably to ensure the division of power (it all ended up in the US for some reason).

no, the UN should not be dismissed. But the security should, or at least the veto powers of certain countries

More specifically the US. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95169)

Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care.

Hmm... If you could prove the inverse correlation to be just as true, then it would say quite a bit about the USA...

Of course it can't force dictatorships to follow instructions

They can. They can veto a 'war' resolution, meaning that the dictatorship is fair game for invasion.

That's clearly not the point. The point isn't that Iraq wasn't doing anything, for that's the be expected. The point is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about it?

While this really belongs in an Iraq thread:

I made the following considerations regarding Iraq (these are of course entirely subjective):

Premise # 1: Saddam should be toppled. If by military action, then so be it.

Premise # 2: The Arab world is gonna be pissed off by having more US troops in the area.

Conclusion: The gain from the action dictated by Premise # 1 is far less than the loss from the consequense dictated by Premise # 2. Therefore to attack now would be stupid in the extreme.

What I want to say here is that most pro-war people seem to forget Premise # 2, which, IMO, makes their statements look rather unnuanced.

Originally posted by Artoo
Personally my heroes are Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Shepard Smith, but to each his own as the slogan goes.
Shep rules!

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm not questioning a 300 years+ old system. The Constitutional Monarchy, however, is almost as old (constitution signed in 1814), which should mean it works just as well.

'Cept that the constitutional monarchy is based on an archaic tradition (yeah, I know that Denmark is, technically, a monachy, but for all of the regent's influence we might as well be a republic... All she does is keep the tabloid press alive.

But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's).

I don't think that Denmark has had more than two Majority Governments (where the Minister of State has the support of more than half of the parlament) in the entire 150-year history of our democracy. However we do have a rule that says that no Minister of State can remain in office if more than half of the parlament has 'no-confidence' in him/her.

Therefore multiple sides would have to come together to pass anything and every party would want to add or subtract or ammend something, no?

Correct. That's called finding a compromise.

Maybe it doesn't work this way in real life, but i just can't imagine anything getting done in a timely fashion unless it was something so basic that no one would object to it.

This is where the major drawback of our system shows through: Every time you want to do something, you have to accumulate a majority in the parlament. This means that there'll be a lot of horse-trading in the corridors. One of the more infameous examples of this is the connection between the building of Storebжltsbroen and "Den Jyske Motorvejsmafia"

I can just imagine if there were 8 parties in the US senate, with 12 or so for each party, and absolutely nothing would happen. One party could stall all legislation, and it would take so much inbetween work and bartering to get anything even to the floor.

Aah. Every party has a veto right in your senate? That goes a lot of way to explaining a lot of things... Well there's no such thing as veto rights in the Danish parlament (well, officially the Regent has veto rights, but you can have a guess at how quickly we'd be a Republic if Her Majesty started using them).

Why not just combine all the right-wing parties and all the left-wing parties? They all want basically the same thing, and people could still hold individual views inside a larger party, but it would be so much easier (it seems to me) to coordinate and implement legislation.

Because having several smaller parties in each 'bloc' means that the voters get a more direct influence on the stands of the blocs.

most of the swing states were eventually for war,

*Coughblackmailcough*

except CNN gives theirs a liberal slant

If by "liberal" you mean "left-wing" then we have differing definitions of "left-wing"...

So if you want the facts, watch both and divide the opinions down the middle.

Soo, in order to get facts more your way you just have to spin you data faster?[/harmless satire]

Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him [Hans Blix], especially on such a subjective matter?

Yeah, I can, because he has the entire fething SC ready to fry his butt if he's caught lying.

Have you seen or heard some of the lies being reported on the arabian networks? al-jazeera, iraqi tv etc... talk about a bunch of crap.

Lemme see what we have here:

We've got multiple reporters in Iraq, each one reporting independently that Al-Jazeera is much, much closer to the facts than any Western media. For two reasons: Al-Jazeera reporters can move more freely, because they don't seem out of place, and Western media self-censor because they don't believe that we can stummach the real pictures... And they are probably right.

Anything that comes out of his [Hussein's] mouth is Propaganda, especially concerning the US. Actually listening to his would be propaganda in itself.

So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces...

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Lemme see what we have here:

We've got multiple reporters in Iraq, each one reporting independently that Al-Jazeera is much, much closer to the facts than any Western media. For two reasons: Al-Jazeera reporters can move more freely, because they don't seem out of place, and Western media self-censor because they don't believe that we can stummach the real pictures... And they are probably right.
So it's right to show POWs being executed?


So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces...

Now that's an outright lie/mistruth. When the Iraqi leaders get on TV and say we're not even in their land... then days later say we're retreating and and we have video showing we're there... that's a lie. When they say we're coming in an killing civilians, that's an outright lie. If we were going in and balls to the wall... Iraq would have been a parking lot a few days ago.
The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD. And that can't be proven until it's over. While they're lying every time they're on TV. Iraqi tv is OWNED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! They have editorial control on the station, and they don't allow satellite tv in their contry... so it's complete propoganda.

-------------------------
And Shep still rules!


[EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.

Originally posted by pbguy1211
The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD.

I recall him saying that Saddam has commited genocide on his people.

Which he hasn't.

A common mistake blown to extreme proportions.

[EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.
It's not very odd in easter civilization. But their last names had to have been different...

Like, if I still believed in that, or we followed that, it would be okay for my son/daughter to marry my sister's daughter/son. (of course, once she marries and changes her last name) - and that's about as close as it gets...

um... isn't that... um... really not right? and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline?

I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.

Not at all interesting.

What has it do with anything?

So people are not allowed to marry someone of their own family?

Originally posted by pbguy1211
um... isn't that... um... really not right? and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline?

Need, based on which criteria?

If it's that there's a chance of a person's genetics becoming homozygotes, then yes, I follow you.

But many families practice this in the arab world. I'm thinking this was just another lame attempt at labeling Saddam the Antichrist, because he doesn't follow established western norms.

Don't be so ethnocentric.

Originally posted by C'jais
Don't be so ethnocentric.
Aren't we looking rather black today Mr. Kettle?
Let me introduce myself, I'm Mr. Pot.

You are THE last one to talk here. Smartass.

Get a job, get a hobby, get a life, and get down off your soap box... because no one is paying you any attention.

Honestly, what do you do all day where you can find the free time to post your daily manifesto?

oops, hit quote instead of edit... duh.

Originally posted by pbguy1211
That's quite the handle you have there Mr. Pot?
Let me introduce myself, I'm Mr. Kettle.

You are THE last one to talk here. Smartass.

Get a job, get a hobby, get a life, and get down off your soap box... because no one is paying you any attention.

Honestly, what do you do all day where you can find the free time to post your daily manifesto?

:lol: Looks like pbguy has been outsmarted... :D

No, just tired of someone's god complex

Originally posted by pbguy1211
Get a job, get a hobby, get a life, and get down off your soap box... because no one is paying you any attention.

FYI, I do have a job, a life and one of my hobbies consists of talking to people like you over teh intarweb.

Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

Originally posted by C'jais
FYI, I do have a job, a life and one of my hobbies consists of talking to people like you over teh intarweb.
No one, I repeat... NO ONE has the free time that you do to post as much (not to mention the length) that you do here.

Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

Fine... but you're judgemental for thinking you know something about me when you obviously don't. You know what happens when you assume. Like I said... drop the god complex. It's fairly obvious why you do so much talking with your keyboard for most of your opinions here would go over about as well as a fart in an opera house. I doubt anyone can stand to be around you socially.

Originally posted by pbguy1211
No one, I repeat... NO ONE has the free time that you do to post as much (not to mention the length) that you do here.

Ok. If you say so.

Fine... but you're judgemental for thinking you know something about me when you obviously don't. You know what happens when you assume. Like I said... drop the god complex. It's fairly obvious why you do so much talking with your keyboard for most of your opinions here would go over about as well as a fart in an opera house. I doubt anyone can stand to be around you socially.

Yeah, and it's a shame your daddy was straight.

Please calm down. And let's return to the topic.

No one, I repeat... NO ONE has the free time that you do to post as much (not to mention the length) that you do here.

:lol: And are you an international surveyor or something?

If that's really what you think, there's a lot that you don't know about...

pbguy, I suggest you step up off, cause he's producing some pretty sound arguments about things going on. Kudos that there's someone out there whose views are very different from mine, but I respect the arguments he puts forth.

There is nothing wrong with being "liberal." In fact, I challenge you to name a domestic program that has benefited society in America that wasn't initiated by a "liberal" adminstration.

EPA, by either Reagen or Nixon I cannot remember.

Looks like pbguy has been outsmarted...

For once I agree with you. :D

What was the thread about again? :D

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
:lol: Looks like pbguy has been outsmarted... :D

So because I have a different view on something from someone else... I've been outsmarted? okay... whatever...

Originally posted by Artoo
pbguy, I suggest you step up off, cause he's producing some pretty sound arguments about things going on
Read the next quote...

Originally posted by C'jais
Yeah, and it's a shame your daddy was straight.
Nice "arguement." That was uncalled for...

Originally posted by C'jais
Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country. First of all the comment was made, not as fact, but under the idea that sex between cousins would produce retardation in possible children. Second of all, it could be (and in most places, IS) considered incest. How many cousins in your family are married? Not many? If any? Didn't think so.

Originally posted by pbguy1211
I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country. First of all the comment was made, not as fact, but under the idea that sex between cousins would produce retardation in possible children. Second of all, it could be (and in most places, IS) considered incest. How many cousins in your family are married? Not many? If any? Didn't think so.

Most places isn't this place. A culture different is not a culture wrong. It's just their culture. I know there's research that shows intermarrying like this reduces genetic variety and also produces not-so-healthy offspring, but it's been done for many centuries and it takes time to stop things like that.

If you want an example, I'll give you one. I'm from India, and my grandfather's daughter, and my grandfather's sister's son married. Big deal. Their sons are all fine with college degrees and work...

Being different isn't being wrong. Although, the disadvantages of this, when realized, could change things.

Originally posted by krkode
Most places isn't this place. A culture different is not a culture wrong. It's just their culture.

I never said it was "wrong"
But I do think there's a little something wrong in the fact that there are so many people in the world who one could be attracted too... and someone picks their cousin?! Get out more often... meet some more people. Come on now...

*Reads full page of flaming of c'jais*

C' jais is right, and this has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country.

1. Why do you say "my" country with " signs? If it's your country, it's your country.

2. Most families in the States marry outside of their family. I'm right? Well, then he's right too. You find it narrow-minded when someone's not ignorant? Well, IMO, get used to it, because most people aren't ignorant.

Back on topic, maybe? What's all this got to do with sovereignity?

Originally posted by pbguy1211
I never said it was "wrong"
But I do think there's a little something wrong in the fact that there are so many people in the world who one could be attracted too... and someone picks their cousin?! Get out more often... meet some more people. Come on now...

It's not about attraction. Ever heard of "arranged marriages"? If you don't love the person your parents match you up with, you learn to love them. The world IS like that in some places. But stuff is different now...wester culture seeping through the gaps ;)

And my apologies. You did never say "wrong," you said, "not right" ;)

Sorry for taking this offtopic, Dago :)

Originally posted by Artoo

EPA, by either Reagen or Nixon I cannot remember.

Very good! I was wondering if anyone would cite that one. Nixon had the EPA officially enacted during his administration. However, it has its roots in many of Roosevelts New Deal programs dealing with conservation and with the Kennedy/Johnson administrations' push for ecology awareness (remember Johnson's Great Society?). Nixon certainly was wise to jump on this platform in his campaign as it was very popular at the time.

I'm not saying that all progress came from liberal adminstrations, but I will say that sometimes conservative adminstrations had some liberal ideas! ;)

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
1. Why do you say "my" country with " signs? If it's your country, it's your country.
|
\/

Originally posted by C'jais
Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
2. Most families in the States marry outside of their family. I'm right? Well, then he's right too. You find it narrow-minded when someone's not ignorant? Well, IMO, get used to it, because most people aren't ignorant.
I'm more concerned with the idea of people possibly having messed up kids. I can clearly accept the fact that that's how it's done in some cultures... but I think that that's a fairly big risk to take... and i don't really agree with it. i dont really think it's worth it when there are so many people in the world.
And you may truely be shocked how many "ignorant" people there are in the world... Depending on ones views and definition of the word ignorant.

I'm more concerned with the idea of people possibly having messed up kids. I can clearly accept the fact that that's how it's done in some cultures... but I think that that's a fairly big risk to take... and i don't really agree with it. i dont really think it's worth it when there are so many people in the world.

Well, sure you could go try and explain that to them. Places where this happens have VERY low literacy rates. It'll take a long time for people to be educated enough to know this stuff. Whether you agree with it or not, it'll stay that way for a while.

to each his/her own... and i'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by pbguy1211
So it's right to show POWs being executed?

That's called shadowboxing. And despite my username, it's not a dicipline that I support. POWs are being executed. So given that premise, it's the media's duty to show it. However, showing POWs in disgraceful positions is against the Geneva Convention, and therefore the former premise is overruled.

However, I didn't comment on whether it was right or not, I just said that Al Jazeera is lying a lot less than CNN.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that's an outright lie/mistruth. When the Iraqi leaders get on TV and say we're not even in their land... then days later say we're retreating and and we have video showing we're there... that's a lie. When they say we're coming in an killing civilians, that's an outright lie. If we were going in and balls to the wall... Iraq would have been a parking lot a few days ago.
The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD. And that can't be proven until it's over. While they're lying every time they're on TV. Iraqi tv is OWNED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! They have editorial control on the station, and they don't allow satellite tv in their contry... so it's complete propoganda.

More shadowboxing. I did not say that Hussein wasn't lying all the time. I did not say that the Iraqi TV wasn't making pro-Hussein propaganda. I did say however that el Prez is lying every time he's in the hot seat. And I did say that no American sender isn't spewing out pro-war propaganda.

Now, the second of my actual statements is proved right here (www.dr.dk) by simple comparison between the aforementioned sender and the CNN. The former statement can be summed up as follows:

GOD is with the US in this war.

The AXIS OF EVIL.

The war will be waged to liberate the Iraqi people and to ensure the continued safety of the US.

Never have I heard a greater load of BS. And never has anyone shadowboxed me so on these boards. Even the Creationists in the Swamp didn't go that far (although maybe it wasn't for lack of trying).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not very odd in easter civilization. But their last names had to have been different...

Like, if I still believed in that, or we followed that, it would be okay for my son/daughter to marry my sister's daughter/son. (of course, once she marries and changes her last name) - and that's about as close as it gets...

You are in DK, I believe. Not that I'd want to, but...

um... isn't that... um... really not right?

Can't see what's wrong with it. Unless you are some overzealous fundamentalist with a religion that forbids it. Because certainly there can be no rational objection against it.

and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline?

It's far enough removed.

I never said it was "wrong"

Hmm... Seing these threads in one piece certainly adds perspective...

Roosevelts New Deal

The one that was ruled to be against the Constitution (when it had already had its effect and it was free to score a few cheap political points on it)?

Now, getting this thread back to topic (is it even possible anymore, or has it degenerated into mindless mud-throwing?):

I believe that the Nation-State construction is inadeqate to fulfill the demands of the future. I think that in a global world we need a global government, that, mind this as it is an important point, even the strongest defer to. However there is little or no chance of the dismantlement of the Nation-State in one swoop, and we certainly don't have a functioning global government, so I think that the best alternative is to work towards increasingly larger unions and trade/defence pacts, that ensure fairness (ok, that might be too great a demand) and which, in time, should be merged into a one-world government.

Yeah! World Government... *goes off to make thread*

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
The one that was ruled to be against the Constitution (when it had already had its effect and it was free to score a few cheap political points on it)?

Yeah... that's the one! :p

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
I believe that the Nation-State construction is inadeqate to fulfill the demands of the future. I think that in a global world we need a global government, that, mind this as it is an important point, even the strongest defer to.

It's interesting to note that NGO's (non-governmental organizations) continually gain significant power within the world. Some corporations even earn more than the the GDP's of many nations. Whether we like it or not, global consermerism will likely be the driving force to unifying the world.

In the 20th Century (perhaps the 19th as well), corporations have been responsible for many rebellions, uprisings and wars. The Shell Oil debacle in Nigeria is a good example. As is the Somoza regime in Nicaragua.

As corporations continue to pour more money into the politics of my country, I forsee less governmental restriction on corporations and more corporate restriction on government.

Lol. That's easily solved, Skin:

Ban secret political donations...

The former (or was it the current?) German Chansellor (almost) got his butt busted because of secret political donations, which is illegal in Germany.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Lol. That's easily solved, Skin:

Ban secret political donations...

While it's a nice idea... the problem is it'll never happen. Here they aren't really secret, but you don't hear about them...