The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
another WAR 2003 Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 28th March 2003
  #391
Gear Head
 

more meandering thoughts

I skimmed some of the backlog---lots of really long posts of late.
Anyway, Brian T proposes a litmus test: Will the people of Iraq be better off 1-2 years down the road?
Well. I think there's a good chance they will be. But I don't think that looks far enough down the road. Chew on this: The CIA aided the Ba'ath party's rise to power in Iraq back about 40 years ago--the govt. of Iraq was too pink for their taste. Saddam Husein worked with the CIA back then, & he is only the second Ba'ath leader since the party took control. So I don't think 1-2 years really goes far enough.

Shifting focus: I sometimes try to look at things the way I think SH might.
Okay. Let's start with an enemy whose stated goal is to overthrow your govt. (there's a nice quote from Time--GWB speaking well before 1441: "**** Saddam. We're taking him out."). Then all of a sudden they start playing the diplomacy game. They bully and fearmonger a new resolution through the UN, hoping you'll never agree to weapons inspections & the path to attack is clear. So you say, Come on over, inspectors. But still you know that the people behind this have only one goal--to remove you from power.
So--do you reveal everything? Do you give the inspectors carte blanche so that the enemy knows the location of every ammo dump, knows all your military secrets so that they can defeat you more quickly? And when they start taking out your defenses before the line in the sand has been crossed, how does it feel to have to sit idly by because retaliation will make you the bad guy?

Now, Saddam is, of course, a bad guy. But does anyone here believe that there was anything he could do to avoid this attack? I really don't.

Oh, and this: Afghanistan may not have oil, but a pipeline is soon to come. Some of Bush's Texas oil buddies are in charge of that project.
Old 28th March 2003
  #392
Here for the gear
 

Ruphus,
I think I understand your point now. I'm speaking of US Accounting Rules, other countries may differ. But there is an accounting principle that requires the audited financial statements of corporations to reflect the value of securities they own at cost (what they paid) or market (what the going price is), whichever is LOWER. So corporate financial statements can't ever show that their securities investments are worth more, but they MUST show if they're worth less.

So, what probably happened is these corporations purchased securities (stocks/bonds) that dropped in value, and then they were required to reflect the new lower price and investment value on their financial statements. The drop in price (the loss) may even be required to be "charged" against current earnings.

Since investors are sensitive to those kinds of negative surprises, they'll usually flee from owning those shares and the stock prices drop like a rock.

The money still hasn't disappeared, but the accounting rules force the companies to show the lower values as "losses" (charges against earnings).

Soooo, short story is... now your point makes sense, and we were both right!
heh


SHHEEEZ, .... could we have been any more boring? Did we manage to chase everyone away from this thread? If I ever mention the words "accounting rules" on this forum again, somebody kick my ass......
Old 28th March 2003
  #393
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Jules

** What a way to carry on! They = all Arabs I suppose? Or should that also include all Muslims?

Now there you go, assuming the worst about me. Are you implying I'm a bigot?

They = people who are on record as desiring the end of my country and the death of my family and friends in the process if necessary.

I identify them not because of their race, where they live or what religion they follow. I identify them simply based upon their publicly expressed hatred for the people in my country and quite possibly hatred of me for my own beliefs.

By coincidence, it seems that a number of them live in the same few countries. So those countries make me nervous.

Is that OK? Or is it too politically incorrect of me to have a problem with people who say they want me dead?


Regards,
Brian T
Old 28th March 2003
  #394
Lives for gear
 

And from a Canadian news org (hardly known as a pro US nation at this point) here is a sample of what I mean. A fine way to raise your children, I say.

Lebanese children chant 'Death to America' in Hezbollah-led protest

I have 3 girls, ages 9, 10 and 12. I'm trying to imagine encouraging them to join a march and chant "Death to Iraq" or even "Death to Bin Laden". I can't even get my mind to go there.

Wow.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 28th March 2003
  #395
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

now you made a good point brian :

thats the major difference , those people do believe in that bull**** . and now the christian invaders are trying to show em using brute force how nice their lifes could be .

if the christian invaders would have taken care about in front that they have muslim allies on their side as well , the whole scenario would be different .

but they dig the same hole again : the kurds are now their allies in northern iraq . the turkish goverment isnt really happy bout that setup . but they calmed down cause they were paid in front .
<-- next conflict !!!

the new israel was presented to the muslim world by the u.k. what do you expect from the muslims living there " OLEOLEOLE " ???

ITS A MAFIA GAME ... ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY

and the only people who die for some " i wanna reign the world " leaders are the innocent people .
FOOD FOR OIL ... hahaha ... NO OIL NO FOOD

fuuck fuuck fuuck

the interpretation of a picture always depends on the viewers interpretations , but YOU must be blind if you cant see the truth .
Old 28th March 2003
  #396
Brian T

"Lebanese children chant 'Death to America' in Hezbollah-led protest

I have 3 girls, ages 9, 10 and 12. I'm trying to imagine encouraging them to join a march and chant "Death to Iraq" or even "Death to Bin Laden". I can't even get my mind to go there."

"Is that OK? Or is it too politically incorrect of me to have a problem with people who say they want me dead?"

--------------------

As a growing global issue it would sure be 'politically reckless' not to at least look into what was annoying them and try and understand it and perhaps break the mold. Anyhow Americans (me included) kinda like the image of being heroes, saving the day, being the 'good guys'. you just seem to 'write them off' as a "crackpots over there who will always hate us, nothing we can do" kinda deal. Arabs are a large group, if you want to factor in Moslems, that's a REAL large group..

Trying to understand your view from theses posts, it just occurred to me that there a is president for a 'those guys over there dont like us' attitude - the cold war anti communism standpoint. It was always "us & them" between the USA & Russia.

Adding centuries old religion and culture to the 'them" of the old "them & us" adversary scenario and you have a BIG potential problem one totally different to the USA / Russia situation. One that IMHO shouldn't be shrugged off in a "oh well, I guess they kinda just hate us" fashion. Careering forward uncaring about this, IS aggressive & imperious of the US and it IS dangerous IMHO.

Old 28th March 2003
  #397
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by tonedaddy
If I ever mention the words "accounting rules" on this forum again, somebody kicik my ass......
heh heh

---------------

And about international ( US /Iraq ) or national conflicts ( e.g. Ireland ) if they wouldn´t be as clear as the US / Iraq case is, I am with a friend who wrote this yesterday: "On actual events which are hard to explain I always ask the question "who is gonna benefit from this" when you follow the money trail you can get another look on things."

Hodad and others already explained very well about the discussed case and discussion partners who after all mean that they ought to hold to the superficial interpretations without thinking over I guess just don´t want to think, but want to keep the naive ideas or benefits they grew up with.

No argument except of personal affect consequently could change such point of view then.

Ruphus
Old 28th March 2003
  #398
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon
One point the peaceniks amazingly overlook is that many more people over the next 10 years would be killed by leaving Saddam in power, than will be killed taking him out.

By insisting we leave Saddam alone, the peace dudes are calling for continued butchery as shown by Saddam toward the Kurds, Shiites and dissenters over the past twenty years.

The people lost in this war is very painful, but nothing compared to the folks Saddam has butchered so far. The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions.

It's just not as "cool" in cultural circles of free countries to protest against dictators who privately wipe out populations, as it is to protest against two countries willing to do something real and forceful to put a stop to it.

Here's hoping that Saddam doesn't kill all his people trying to hold onto power.

That's my exact argument with the peaceniks. (love that term) All I hear them saying is "stop the needless killing". I mean, if you're simply against killing, then you should have been holding a peace protest every day for a least the last four thousand years.

Many of the peaceniks I see blocking traffic around Los Angeles are collage age kids. And for them, the peace protest's seem more like a big frat party - where they can yell about stuff, hang with their buds, and defy authority - maybe even get on television. (cool stuff!)

Bush has said from day one - "the cost of doing nothing is far greater". And if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein, and the terrorist groups throughout that region, (9/11!) it's pretty hard to argue with.


===
Old 28th March 2003
  #399
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

Malice,

As I said many pages ago; people often make emotional decisions, on emotional issues - regardless of the facts. And as I sit here watching images of families from my own neighborhood who've lost children in the current conflict, it's pretty easy to ignore facts, and simply get pissed about everything. Sorry about that!

War is politics, politics is biased and corrupt - so who really knows what the facts are anyway? Even my wife and I disagree on many aspects of it all - and we were both from Los Angeles. There's also people all over America becoming estranged from family members, and long time friends over this war. So complete strangers, from different countries, getting heated about things on the internet is probably par for the course.

I think this war has gotten me, and everybody else a lot more rattled than we probably thought. So I'll apologize for my end of things, and attempt to try and see both sides of the fence - I said "attempt". - Peace.



Old 28th March 2003
  #400
Old 28th March 2003
  #402
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

In reply to your post, ultima, (which you've since deleted) here's a Colin Powell quote regarding the American imperialism you mention:

When in England at a conference last autumn, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were not just another example of empire building by George Bush.

Colin Powell answered, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.
Old 28th March 2003
  #403
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Here's one for all the Bush bashers out there...

The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac...sailing on the presidential yacht, the Sequoia. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a boat, but Bush waves them off, saying, "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."

Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat back to the Pope.

The next morning, the Washington Post and the European newspapers carry the story, with front page photos of the event. The banner headline is:

"Bush Can't Swim"
Old 28th March 2003
  #404
Gear Maniac
 
ultima's Avatar
 

yeah very impressive quote from Colin Powell ....

The American adminsitration is very good at fancy words and stuff.
"Shock and awe" Opreation Desert storm" Operation Iraqi Liberty"

Too bad it dont hold up when you examine closely.

I dont want to come off as an anti- american or whatever it just scares me the way America rushes forward without asking anyone.
I mean who´s next?

What about Europe...

Remember Europe....Where history comes from.!?heh
Old 28th March 2003
  #405
Gear Maniac
 
ultima's Avatar
 

Old 28th March 2003
  #406
Brilliant!

Old 28th March 2003
  #407
Gear Maniac
 
ultima's Avatar
 

hehe...check this out as well...Working for a change
Old 28th March 2003
  #408
Gear Maniac
 
ultima's Avatar
 

Just this one and ill stop now...



Old 28th March 2003
  #409
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

rofl
Old 28th March 2003
  #410
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

We have a group of Arab muslim artists who are mixing an excellent album here for two weeks. At the studio, we receive just about every TV news channel you can get here in Paris, including CNN, EuroNews, Al-Jazeera, LCI, Bloomberg and BBC World, and some serious round-the-clock checking of them all is going on here.

In the case of the Arab muslim artists here, their anti-war sentiments are exceeded by their anti-Saddam sentiment. They are hoping, probably in vain, that Saddam will respect the Iraqi population enough to step down rather than sacrifice them in a desperate last cling to power. They reckon that publicly protesting and singing kum by yah in the streets, in this case, only helps Saddam divide world opinion to stay in power.

In the end, we are all faced with a choice to make. In this case, between a dictator that hates you and a US President that you love to hate. And for the Iraqi people, between the long-standing Saddam regime (and its hundreds of thousands of people killed to maintain power) and the hopes and perils of a newly-elected one. And no choice is a choice.

Freedom of expression is an extremely important right that I'll defend to the end. But please let me point out the following:

By protesting the war, at this moment, we are de facto supporting Saddam and his Fedayeen and Republican Guard...and making life even more of a hell for the poor soldiers on both sides, and for the hungry, thirsty people in Iraq who are scared, who don't know if they can trust the coalition to really take Saddam out this time, but who would like the Saddam issue to be resolved quickly.
Old 28th March 2003
  #411
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

so what shall we do JON ???
Old 28th March 2003
  #412
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon

They are hoping, probably in vain, that Saddam will respect the Iraqi population enough to step down rather than sacrifice them in a desperate last cling to power.

So Saddam Husein is supposed to give up, even though *he* undobtedly believes he is right (just as GWB believes he is right) because the enemy has a lot of really big bombs and can blow the **** out of the entire country. He should surrender so that the enemy can come in and set up a puppet govt. and reap the benefits of the nation's vast resources.

And I suppose when GWB decides that he's tired of the antics of--oh, I don't know, maybe Blacque Jacques Chirac, then Chirac should just resign to spare the people of France from the terrors of war.

Now, France probably won't be next, but South Korea and Iran are both on GWB's hit list. Are they supposed to allow GWB to overthrow their govt. as well?
Old 28th March 2003
  #413
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

What needs to happen now is for Frank Zappa to rise from the grave and make an album about the whole thing.
Old 28th March 2003
  #414
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by 5down1up
so what shall we do JON ???
It seems to me the most effective time to go in the streets and protest would be when Saddam is out of power...to put pressure on for free Iraqi elections, proper use of the oil to rebuild the country and for the good of the country (not just the leaders and their friends or the US/UK), and see that control of the country is gradually but effectively passed to the new Iraqi government once it has been elected and is working properly. And also...to apply pressure for a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, which will likely be a Palestine state with borders to be negotiated, and with the requirement of mutual recognition of each others' right to exist in peace. Then again, maybe I'm dreaming.

Protesting now delays the agony of choices already made by both Saddam and the coalition, and puts more cards in Saddam's hand. Drawing out the process makes it messier, bloodier and costlier.

IMHO, applying pressure during the post-Saddam period might have more of a chance to influence policy and advance the chance for peace in the region.

One caveat: If you believe that Saddam will somehow manage to remain in power and control of Iraq, then my reasoning won't make sense and you'd see reasons for doing everything to help Saddam now.
Old 28th March 2003
  #415
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

This is of course assuming that the whole thing doesn't get completely out of hand by then and take on biblical proportions.
Old 28th March 2003
  #416
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Bevvy,

The coalition has one major disadvantage that Saddam is doing his best to exploit: To win the war, they have to not only remove Saddam and his Baath party from power, they have to win the hearts of the Iraqi people.

For this reason, a massive holocaust of the Iraqi people is not in the US war plan.

Any major catastrophe would come either from Saddam employing weapons of mass destruction, which would likely kill unprotected Iraqis en masse and cause him to lose international support from anti-coalition countries like France, Germany, Russia and China....

...or from a third party that enters into the fray to help Saddam. While it's likely that some of Saddam's allies may help him, it's less likely they will employ weapons of mass destruction as part of that aid.

...or from an Iraqi / Al Quaida terrorist act abroad.

Saddam's been breaking every rule of warfare, human dignity and respect for life so far, not only this past week but over the past twenty years during which he has killed more Iraqis than anyone ever will, so we may see further desperate, disgusting measures.

I hope the anti-coalition folks will at least see his acts for what they are, rather than blindly chanting the cool slogans with the cool people and feeling superior to those poor grunts doing the dirty work in the trenches.

One other thing to do: Count your blessings.
Old 29th March 2003
  #417
Lives for gear
 

Sorry to disappoint those of you who hate Bush, but at least one of the damning "facts" mentioned in this thread appears to be incorrect.

The Link


Regards,
Brian T
Old 29th March 2003
  #418
Schnert
Guest
Qoute from article:

"Halliburton was one of five large U.S. companies that the Bush administration asked in mid-February to bid on the 21-month contract, which involves the reconstruction of Iraq’s critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges and hospitals, after the war."

In mid February? Good planning.....
Old 29th March 2003
  #419
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianT
Sorry to disappoint those of you who hate Bush, but at least one of the damning "facts" mentioned in this thread appears to be incorrect.

From the article:

"Halliburton chose to play a subcontracting role."

So there's political heat, Halliburton backs out (or is asked to), but they're still gonna get mega bucks as a subcontractor--just without all the bad press.

Which damning "fact" does this disprove?
Old 29th March 2003
  #420
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by hodad
From the article:

"Halliburton chose to play a subcontracting role."

So there's political heat, Halliburton backs out (or is asked to), but they're still gonna get mega bucks as a subcontractor--just without all the bad press.

Which damning "fact" does this disprove?
Halliburton has been awarded no contract, and as the article clearly says "the Houston-based firm could take part as a subcontractor." Not "is", "could".

You now seem to have it in your mind as a "fact" that "they're still gonna get mega bucks as a subcontractor". No guarantee of that and only time will tell.

My point is that I've read in numerous places that Halliburton was a shoe in because of Cheney. People (including you) used that "fact" to demonstrate the evil chicanery of the current administration. Now that Halliburton was not a shoe in, the accusations just zig left a bit further and go on with little regards to facts.

It's a bit like the good old fashioned witch accusations. If she floats, she's a witch and gets burned at the stake. If she sinks in the water and drowns, she wasn't really a witch, so at least we know now.

Either way, it sucks to be accused as a witch in that mentality. If Halliburton just went ahead and declared bankruptcy because the VP used to work there, would that do it for you?

I know I'm pissed off that a brilliant businessman is helping run the country. Why can't they get somebody in there who sucks at business, so we can all feel better about things?

And by the way, did you ever bother to find out whether or not Halliburton is very good at what it does? FYI, it is. It extinguished the fires in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 far ahead of schedule and on budget. That seems pretty good to me. What if they were to be legitimately the best choice, based upon merit, but got bounced because the wrong guy used to work there.

Would that matter, in your world of political reality? Or can you not entertain that idea as a possibility, because it collides with preconceptions? They just have to be undeserving of the business because Cheney worked there, right?

There just ain't a way to please some folks.


Regards,
Brian T
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
mastermix / Mastering forum
5
Nick A. / So much gear, so little time
9
Nu-tra / So much gear, so little time
40

Forum Jump
Forum Jump