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 11th April 2003
  #661
Lives for gear
 

My, my, isn't this a tolerant bunch!

Oh, the irony of the totalitarian thought police so concerned about the rights of others. "You will think like and agree with me, or you will be wrong and wicked!". Sorry, I'm not buying into that, neither as a recipient nor as a vendor.

Let me suggest an example of how to be at least a slight bit gracious, even in the midst of (what used to be) a civil disagreement. Here's a quote of my response to Messiah. Keep in mind that this is after some pretty harsh words from him, including the now obligatory cursing about those he disagrees with.

***************************
Brian T wrote:

" Maybe you're right and it's all been BS. Could be. Or maybe you've prognosticated a bit prematurely and we'll see how that plays out now. I admit there have been a number of false alarms involving supposed WDM so far, mostly by reporters. And to be fair (if that's OK as far as the US goes), the US has debunked all of them and stated they were false when that was the case.

So anyway, I'm thinking your post regarding the WDM is going to look pretty silly within a week or so, now that we can look wherever we want, unimpeded. But I could absolutely be wrong."

***************************

Notice the phrases that I purposely include such as "Maybe you're right and it's all been BS. Could be. ". Or such as "But I could absolutely be wrong."

Those are in there for a simple reason. Respect for another human being. Even one I disagree with. And the explicit acknowledgement that I know I am not infallible, that he could in fact be right, however passionately I may feel about a subject.

If that fundamental respect for those you disagree with is not a prerequisite for your communication with another human being; if you're incapable of acknowledging your own potential fallibility, then I respectfully suggest that your own arguments for the rights of other people become hollow, and your hypocrisy may be on par with those self righteously religious people you find so onerous in their zeal.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 11th April 2003
  #662
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianT
Now exactly which US made weapons have they found? Could you elaborate a bit? Speak knowledge.
dude, we ****ing stocked them FULL of weapons during the 80's. they are finding stashes of american made weapons as they move across the country. its on every ****ing news report even stated by the US government. i dont know models... or what they are. im not some military nut who can identify a weapon at 100 yards. i dont really give a ****. but the FACT is AMERICA supplied IRAQ weapons like it or not. same ****ing way we supplied the TALIBAN with weapons and AL-Q and BIN LADEN. this isnt some big secret or conspiracy. its ADMITTED by the government.
Old 11th April 2003
  #663
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk
dude, we ****ing stocked them FULL of weapons during the 80's. they are finding stashes of american made weapons as they move across the country. its on every ****ing news report even stated by the US government. i dont know models... or what they are. im not some military nut who can identify a weapon at 100 yards. i dont really give a ****. but the FACT is AMERICA supplied IRAQ weapons like it or not. same ****ing way we supplied the TALIBAN with weapons and AL-Q and BIN LADEN. this isnt some big secret or conspiracy. its ADMITTED by the government.
Well, that may be alpha, but they're not shooting them at us, because I do know weapons and everything I've seen is Soviet.

I'm sure we did sell some weapons to them during the Iraq/Iran war. But I was responding to the allegation that "the US armed Saddam". Not compared to Russia and France, we didn't. That's my only point. A bit of factual accuracy.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 11th April 2003
  #664
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianT
My, my, isn't this a tolerant bunch!

Oh, the irony of the totalitarian thought police so concerned about the rights of others. "You will think like and agree with me, or you will be wrong and wicked!". Sorry, I'm not buying into that, neither as a recipient nor as a vendor.

Let me suggest an example of how to be at least a slight bit gracious, even in the midst of (what used to be) a civil disagreement.
The funniest thing is that those who defend the rights to exploit and destroy others all the time carry the attitude of liberalism and talk about freedom of mind.

Indeed they do it all the time even when people ask for their rights. The less funny part of this is the fact that less informed crowds internalize this as truth speech just because of its frequent repetition.

To everybody his own. Dog **** to eat for the starving and endless possession for the rich.

Intolerant are those who are for equal human rights. They just don´t understand what freedom of mind is.

Dogmatic are the people who don´t undertsand that the rich have worked hard for their money.

Just like political and economical VIPS when they make an appointment with the press to accompany them through a working day and before tell their secretaries to change the schedule from water skiing, sauna, noble restaurants and ***** houses to all day meetings with social representatives and incredibly engaged leaders from the early morning till late in the night.

Hahahahaha!

heh heh

Believers how many bibles do you have?

Ruphus
Old 11th April 2003
  #665
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruphus
The funniest thing is that those who defend the rights to exploit and destroy others all the time carry the attitude of liberalism and talk about freedom of mind.

Indeed they do it all the time even when people ask for their rights. The less funny part of this is the fact that less informed crowds internalize this as truth speech just because of its frequent repetition.

To everybody his own. Dog **** to eat for the starving and endless possession for the rich.

Intolerant are those who are for equal human rights. They just don´t understand what freedom of mind is.

Dogmatic are the people who don´t undertsand that the rich have worked hard for their money.

Just like political and economical VIPS when they make an appointment with the press to accompany them through a working day and before tell their secretaries to change the schedule from water skiing, sauna, noble restaurants and ***** houses to all day meetings with social representatives and incredibly engaged leaders from the early morning till late in the night.

Hahahahaha!

heh heh

Believers how many bibles do you have?

Ruphus

So I guess you laughing at me and belittling my faith answers my post about respecting your fellow man.

I can't believe I'm reduced to this, Ruphus, but let me ask you how much of your own personal time and money you spent in the last year feeding the hungry people you are speaking of, or getting them medical treatment? Is there action with your words? I sincerely hope so and I mean that in a good way.

You probably do not want to ask me that question, because my answer might cause a problem with your prejudice and assumptions.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 11th April 2003
  #666
Gear Addict
 

Brian
I'm taking one more stab at this, because as I've said I have respect for you as an individual. You're really just going around in a circle now and repeating the mantra that we are unmoving self righteous persons who deny you your right to have an opinion about something. I think the fact that so many people have spent so long in discussion with you sort of proves that we do care deeply about this issue.
Lets change the view some. Suppose we were discussing abusing our mates or our children, would you still hold to the principal that there can be right on both sides? Would it be OK to beat my wife or kids a little bit? Or perhaps for their own good?Or when they really piss me off. I don't think, in fact I know, you wouldn't go for that bro. so obviously there are situations where there is an ultimate right and wrong. You can surely agree to that. This issue is one of those, it is wrong to invaded a country unilaterally and try to force democracy at the point of a gun, especially when there was international involvement. Canada sponsered a counter proposal that would have given Saddam 3 weeks more and then forced compliance with an international force that would have had much more legitamousy. But about the time that that proposal was floated the info about Cheney's company selling chemicals to Iraq was starting to be reported , at least here in Canada. Coincidence? Possibly. Or maybe George and the boys saw their opportunity to rip the american public off, going down the drain. As they say "truth is the first casualty of war"
This regime change to promote democracy thing could be a two edged sword if it catches on. Perhaps we should start with the American allies in Latin America next. Take care Logan
Old 11th April 2003
  #667
Lives for gear
 
littledog's Avatar
 

There is a moral dilemma for which I make no claim to be able to answer.

Hypothetical:

You are able to go back in history and assassinate Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or the demon of your choice, thereby most likely saving millions of lives. You have no United Nations mandate. No legal grounds. After which, of course, you would be villified as an outlaw who acted with no right or justification. Still, wouldn't most of us disregard world opinion and jump at the chance to save millions?

I think the moral ground is not as absolute or as easy as some would have us believe. The above example is pretty much a no-brainer, yet it is not so clear when we scale down the level of villainy a bit. We don't condone vigilante justice in most cases, and for good reasons, as it leads to the breakdown of society. Yet in the above case, most of us would make an exception.

In the opinions of the Kurds, Shiites, and many other Iraqi people, Saddam may not be far removed (if at all) from the infamous company listed above.

It is intoxicating to watch people who have just escaped tyranny. The Berlin Wall, Tienamin Square, Baghdad...

I, too, remain disturbed by the dangerous precedents set by the US actions. But can anyone really admit that some small part of them is not experiencing joy at the overthrow of Saddam? Even if it happened in a less than ideal way?

It saddens me when some of us here on both sides of the issue claim the absolute moral ground. Usually such ground never exists in the real world, and those that claim it are, unfortunately, to be feared.
Old 11th April 2003
  #668
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

That ****head Wolfowitz ...

Guys,

I don't Have time to read the last pages of this thread, I have a udge work to finish but I have to post that.

I heard on the radio that Mr Wolfowitz made a statement about billing France, Germany and Russia for not supporting US during that conflict.

PAY ATTENTION TO THIS

Especially all the pro-war cats, and Brian, for whom I have respect, cause I really want his thoughts about that.

Wolfowitz put an amount on this bill : 8 billion for France only (I'm not sure the exact amount, but what is important is that he is billing other countries)

What can we conclude from this statement :

1- In the head of Wolfowitz, who is by the way G.W.BUSH mentor along with Richard Pearl, this Iraq operation is now clearly a commercial business. He's suggestion of billing France and Germany is more or less like a fee to a club membership.

If he had humanitarian intentions about Iraq, he would have been just please to be right against detractors ... Such as Tony Blair is, I must say tutt


2- That the side effect of dividing Europe is totaly in GWB administration plan.

3- That putting that kind of sanction to an friendly country is way out of line : in fact, it is way out of line to do that to any democratic foreign country

4- That I'm that close to quit smoking Chesterfields, mmh, may be it is a good opportunity to quit smoking


Now we are trully seeing what this is all about, and I can't see how anyone here or anywhere could justify the fact that US gvt had avowable reasons to liberate Iraq.

Some of your gvt members are insane irresponsible ****heads IMHO

Waiting for your thoughts, I won't leave the room until then ...

malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #669
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

And Brian, concerning US going for Syria, this same f**kers Paul Wolfowitz made it quiet clear during his statement ...

This guy is a dangerous looney



malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #670
Hey Brian,

I was just thinking last night... that you were one person I was very keen to get to visit Gearslutz and take part back when I started it. You have mixed worldwide number one hits in a DAW!
I never immagined you would end up making such a large contribution to the gear discussion as you have done nor ever imagined that such an empassioned thread as this would recieve such interesting contribution from your good self. While I share more in common politically with Logan & Little Dog, I feel all of us are lucky to know you.

Keep on keeping on!


Old 11th April 2003
  #671
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Yeah, Jules right ...

I like you a lot Brian, don't take my two previous posts as a personal attack, more like a desperate need to understand ...

peace to you

malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #672
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

this thread is getting close to become a book !

as far as we keep on talking ,
no matter if we agree or disagree ,
its the best sign , that we care .

you guys rock
Old 11th April 2003
  #673
Lives for gear
 
Messiah's Avatar
 

Ahh, how lovely this all is. Why, I wanna give Brian a big hug now, and Dubya too come to think of it, the l'il rascal.....get a freakin' room guys.

COME ON, AFTER ME;

"WAR....HUH!!....GOOD GOD.....WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR....." (come on Jules, Logan, Malice, Ruphus, loud as you can guys!!)..."ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN'"....

heh heh
Old 11th April 2003
  #674
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianT
So I guess you laughing at me and belittling my faith answers my post about respecting your fellow man.

I can't believe I'm reduced to this, Ruphus, but let me ask you how much of your own personal time and money you spent in the last year feeding the hungry people you are speaking of, or getting them medical treatment? Is there action with your words? I sincerely hope so and I mean that in a good way.

You probably do not want to ask me that question, because my answer might cause a problem with your prejudice and assumptions.


Regards,
Brian T
No, Brian,

I was not laughing at you, but at the characters you believe in. - But at the end again you are right, I have been laughing at you, when I think it consequently to the end.

I think there is much more sense in taking the time and efforts to look into realities face than into spending money for wellfare that reaches its goal in a fraction anyways. And while you can´t see that, it is much more harder to live with consciousness about what is going on than to give away money.

No, I do not spend on donation, but I have spend a bigger part of what I had as budget for personal contacts then anybody I know of, hoping that it could be an example of less material aim than it is usual in our industrial society. It BTW, had influence on some and on others rather not.

I have to admit though that in the past years I relatively slowed down on this, because my resources are limited while the efficiency as an example is relatively small.

I also think it much more senseful to spend the energy into acting against distortion, which I do as intensive as I breath. And as a fact of which you had no chance to find out being consequent in informing yourself and following the principles deriving from that has quite an impact on your career regrdless of your practical skills. Minds who are consequently trying to approach to what is going on in reality are everything, but not supported in a form of society that fears nothing as much than its real principles to be discussed.

"You probably do not want to ask me that question, because my answer might cause a problem with your prejudice and assumptions."

No, my aim is not to prove that you must be an evil soul and if you are trying to ease your privileged living standard by thinking you would share with the poor I have no problem to notice this as a positive personal quality. No, I even prefer the idea that your destructive output is not intentional.

I anyway am not here to insult you, but trying to make you hesitate on a manipulated world reception ( rather in vain though ).

Back to your good intentions with donating. It won´t help change the cruel injustice we have even a bit when you do that, as long as the impact of every single reactionary attitude is helping to maintain the fatal circle we live in.

This probably is why individuals like me might appear as inflexible to you while we are not. Just in the opposite, it takes flexibility to
escape the almost perfect manipulating mashinery that has been build up and perfected through centuries.

It is much easier to believe than investigating.

Greets,

Ruphus
Old 11th April 2003
  #675
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Messiah
Ahh, how lovely this all is. Why, I wanna give Brian a big hug now, and Dubya too come to think of it, the l'il rascal.....get a freakin' room guys.

COME ON, AFTER ME;

"WAR....HUH!!....GOOD GOD.....WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR....." (come on Jules, Logan, Malice, Ruphus, loud as you can guys!!)..."ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN'"....

heh heh
heh heh

Yap!!
Old 11th April 2003
  #676
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

This guy, the founder of STRATFOR (Strategic Forecasting), is usually pretty accurate...here's his latest analysis:

****************
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
10 April 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

After Iraq: The Ongoing Crisis

Summary

As the war in Iraq moves toward a conclusion, the expectations
are that the end of the war will bring at least a pause in
international tensions. We do not believe this will be the case.
Given U.S. war goals, crises -- inside Iraq, with nations along
Iraq's border and between Europe and the United States -- can be
expected to flow directly from war termination, whenever it
comes. As we have said, Iraq is a campaign in a much larger war
and not a war in itself. We now will see what that means.

Analysis

Stratfor has argued that the United States had two fundamental
reasons for invading Iraq:

1. To transform the psychology of the Islamic world, which had
perceived the United States as in essence weak and unwilling to
take risks to achieve its ends.

2. To use Iraq as a strategic base of operations from which to
confront Islamic regimes that are either incapable of or
unwilling to deny al Qaeda and other Islamist groups access to
enabling resources.

The war in Iraq is not over: There are extraordinarily complex
politico-military missions to confront. This is particularly true
in the north, where some substantial Iraqi forces appear to
remain and where the political situation among various players --
Kurdish, Turkish, Iranian and Syrian -- remains complex, dynamic
and opaque. Nevertheless, it is possible to make some assessment
of the intended and unintended consequences of the war.

There already has been a strong impact on the psychology of the
Arab world in particular. During the run-up to the war and until
the last week, there existed a sense of growing anger and
radicalization. With the collapse of resistance in Baghdad, this
has given way to a sense of stunned disbelief. The Arab press
appears to be filled with four themes:

1. A sense of denial, and an insistence that resistance continued
but was being hidden by the world press.

2. A sense of betrayal by Saddam Hussein, whose failure to resist
effectively was seen as a sign of corruption.

3. A sense of hopelessness, expressing the view that resisting
the United States is beyond the capacity of Arabs. This was
coupled at times with an expression of determination to rectify
the situation.

4. Bitterness at Europe -- particularly France and Russia, which
abandoned Iraq to its fate.

U.S. leaders understand that the result of the war will be
increased bitterness, although some argue that Arab bitterness
was already maxed out anyway. What they are driving for with this
operation is a psychological capitulation -- a sense that
accommodation with the United States is the only path.

The United States certainly has inflicted a massive blow on the
Arab, if not the Islamic, psyche. The only comparable moment was
in June 1967, when Israeli forces defeated the Egyptians, Syrians
and Jordanians. It should be remembered that the defeat had
unintended consequences: Not only did Egypt and Syria attack
Israel with some effect in 1973, but the consequences of the
defeat energized the Palestinian movement. The Israelis have
begun warning the Palestinians to think through the lessons of
Iraq. On the other side, the United States must carefully think
through the lessons of 1967.

The simplistic idea that resentment of the United States will
generate effective action by Arabs misses a crucial point. Two
scales are at work here: the radicalism scale and the hope scale.
On the radicalism scale, the level of radicalism and anti-
Americanism in the Arab world has been off the chart for months.
Increasing the level would be difficult. However, radicalism by
itself does not lead to action. There must also be hope -- a
sense that there are weaknesses in the U.S. position that can be
exploited, that there is some possibility of victory, however
distant. So long as the hope scale tends toward hopelessness,
radicalism can be intense.

The United States was prepared to allow the radicalism scale to
go deep into the danger zone, but Washington has been trying to
keep the hope scale deeply in the green zone. Israel's failure
after 1967 was inherent in its position: The Israelis depended
heavily on outsiders for national security. The Arab perception
was that the Israelis could be attacked by splitting them from
their patrons. This sense of vulnerability led to an active
response to defeat.

The task facing the United States now is to avoid projecting a
sense of vulnerability. This is easier for Washington than it was
for Israel. The United States comes out of the war less dependent
on others; it also has a strong domestic consensus in favor of
the war. The United States presents, at the moment, a seamless
face to the Arab world: It is hated but feared. Washington now
must act now to maintain the fear, while reducing hatred. How it
manages Iraq will determine the outcome. If the United States
loses control of the situation, it quickly could lead to a
perception of vulnerability. It must control the situation in
Iraq while maintaining a benign administration. This will not be
as easy it sounds: Where Washington can choose between
unrelenting strength and the risk of perceived weakness, it will
have to carefully choose strength. That is implicit in the
strategy.
Old 11th April 2003
  #677
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

(analysis, continued...)

From a geopolitical perspective, we already have seen the United
States transiting from the Iraqi war phase toward confrontation
with the surrounding states. Saudi leaders capitulated in
fundamental ways before the United States went to war, permitting
U.S. aircraft to fly air strikes against Iraq and allowing U.S.
forces to pass through Saudi territory. Jordan and Kuwait are not
problems. But there are three issues: Syria, Turkey and Iran.

* Syria: Syrian behavior has become unpredictable. The Syrians
have long understood that, as a consequence of the war, their
country would be surrounded by three enemies: the United States,
Turkey and Israel. Rather than trying to reach an accommodation
with the United States, Damascus stepped up its aggressive
behavior during the war, permitting volunteers to go into Iraq to
fight coalition forces and apparently permitting Iraqi personnel
to seek shelter in Iraq. The Bush administration has made it
clear that it finds Syrian behavior intolerable, and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has refused to rule out assertive
action against Syria. There was no question but that the United
States was going to confront Syria at some point from its bases
in Iraq, but the Syrians seem to have chosen to accelerate the
process -- perhaps feeling that a better settlement could be
reached earlier in the game.

* Turkey: Washington needs to defuse the bad end to the pre-war
confrontation. Turkey is a geopolitical foundation of U.S.
strategy -- not only in the Middle East, but also north of the
Caucasus, in southeastern Europe and Iran. A permanent rift with
Turkey would be intolerable. Similarly, the United States remains
the foundation of Turkish national security policy. Without it,
Turkey has fundamental problems. The two countries may not be
friends at the moment, but they share fundamental interests. Both
nations now will attempt to extract themselves from the
unacceptable situation they created for each other. The key will
be limiting Kurdish expectations.

* Iran: the extraordinarily complex game that Tehran is playing
makes Syrian foreign policy transparent. Iran has positioned
itself in such a way that its pro-Iranian Shiite groups in Iraq
could wage a guerrilla war against the United States, while
Tehran holds open the possibility of reaching implicit
accommodations with the United States -- all at the same time.
Iranian subtlety notwithstanding, Washington regards Iran as the
single most potentially dangerous regime in the region, because
of both its resources and the complexity of its politics and
policies. Iran has positioned itself to be fundamentally
unpredictable -- and having achieved this goal, it concerns the
United States tremendously.

Therefore, if the goal of the United States was to create a base
of operations in Iraq from which to influence the dynamics of the
region internally, the game is in play even before the war is
formally ended. The Syrian situation will probably be contained,
but it represents a fundamentally destabilizing factor to the
region. The Iranian situation is much more difficult to predict
in the long run, even as the Iranians practice their
traditionally complex prudence in the short run.

In a similar sense, unintended consequences of the war must be
managed. The U.S. relationship with Britain is fundamental to
U.S. national strategy -- and Britain, for a host of its own
reasons, does not want an outright breach either with the Franco-
German bloc or with multilateral organizations like the United
Nations. The United States must accommodate the British without
losing control of the situation in Iraq.

The primary purpose of the April 11-12 summit in St. Petersburg
between Russian, German and French leaders is to find a way to
limit the consequences of U.S. victory in Iraq. All of them
opposed the war, and the United States prosecuted it any way.
This demonstrated that Washington needs neither material support
from Europe nor political validation. For all three countries,
this represents a fundamental redefinition of their place in the
world. There had been a fixed assumption that in some sense, the
United States remained dependent on them, that they were
necessary enablers for global actions. Alliance for them was not
an American choice, but a necessity. Iraq represented a very
public demonstration that they were irrelevant to U.S.
policymaking, either individually or collectively. This
represents a geopolitical crisis of the first order to them.

These countries' solution will be to try to manipulate the United
States into accepting the United Nations as the primary manager
of Iraqi affairs. To do so, they will use the British desire to
maintain bridges to the Franco-German bloc as a means of forcing
the United States to shift policy. The United States cannot
abandon control of Iraq without abandoning the goals for which it
fought the war. This undoubtedly will lead to another round of
unpleasantness with the Euro Three, which would not bother
Washington a bit. U.S. President George W. Bush is positioned
domestically to take advantage of resentment -- particularly of
France -- so that their demand to participate in governing Iraq
will be taken as wanting the fruits of victory without taking the
risks. The British, however, will be another matter. We expect to
see growing strains between the two countries as Britain tries to
find balance.

What we are getting at is that no postwar lull is possible here,
even if there does emerge a clear-cut end to the war. The two
goals of the war need immediate management. The management of
Arab and Islamic public opinion requires exquisite care in the
management of internal Iraqi affairs. It also requires that U.S.
power in the region be perceived as irresistible. This means that
U.S. relations with Syria and Iran must be managed aggressively
but without crossing the line to unwarranted belligerence. It
means that the U.S.-Turkish relationship must be managed
dispassionately, in spite of underlying tensions. All of this is
urgent. None of it will wait. Finally, the pre-war battle with
the Europeans, while undoubtedly more subdued, still will define
much of the global rhetoric -- save that given its stakes in the
Islamic world, the United States will be even less able and less
inclined to cooperate with European demands.

Now things get really tricky.

...................................................................

STRATFOR SERVICES NOW AVAILABLE:

Join decision-makers around the world who read Stratfor for daily
intelligence briefs, in-depth analyses and forecasts on a wide
range of international security, political and economic affairs.

...................................................................

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Product inquiries, partnership, and sales: [email protected]
Subscription and customer service issues: [email protected]
Comments and/or information for analysis: [email protected]
Media services and trade show requests: [email protected]
Old 11th April 2003
  #678
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Jon : great article

The cynism, the glorious cynism ...

btw, have a look at that :

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_arti...d=2559&lang=en

no ****

malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #679
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Checked the link...the photo appears to have been taken sometime well after the event.
Old 11th April 2003
  #680
Gear Head
 

grumpy

I was thinking as I lay in bed last night, there's only one thing about this war that doesn't stink: Saddam is most assuredly a despicable despot. As for the rest of it, if you can't smell the stench you must be holding your nose. Let's start six months before 1441: Bush says to a small group of congressmen:
"**** Saddam. We're taking him out."

If you think this doesn't taint all subsequent "diplomacy", then you ain't thinkin'.

So the Bush admin cranks upits PR machine, propagating the idea that Saddam is linked to al Qaida. Never mind that there's no proof of this, and that secular Saddam and fundamentalist Osama do not see eye to eye, and there were no Iraqis among the 9-11 terrorists. It's okay to lie if it serves the admin's purposes.

Then Bush starts making demands of Saddam. Once Saddam accedes to a demand a new hurtle is put up. The reason for this is the the Bush admin has no interest in a peaceful solution. They just need to push him to defy their wishes somewhere along the way so that they can go in and kick his ass.

In the middle of all this comes 1441. Somebody in the admin woke up & said, "Hey, we have no legal grounds to attack Iraq without involving the UN." So the US, through bullying, fearmongering, coaxing and cajoling, railroads 1441 through the UN--all the while knowing that they're going to "take Saddam out" regardless.

Inspectors go in and are grudgingly provided access. No WMD are found. Yet the Bush admin insists that they're there. Powell goes before the UN and cites some Brit's term paper and some falsified (by whom we don't know) intel about an attempted uranium buy in Africa. Although there's still no evidence to prove Iraq's got WMD, the US prepares for war.

There's resistance at the UN at the end--maybe some folks realized they were be used to justify a war & that didn't sit well with them. I don't know. There were certainly other reasons, including public opinion about the war in various countries. In the end, the US gives the UN the flipoff & goes marching on to war, holding up 1441 the way a cop would a search warrant.

As it is, without final UN approval & without any proof of WMD, 1441 gives the US a legal leg to stand on--a flimsy one, but who's tough enough to kick it out from under 'em?

The war proceeds, & to date, no evidence of WMD (unless I missed something in the past 2 days.) More importantly (IMO), none were used. I mean, hey, who has more WMD than the US? But it's okay if we don't use them, right?
(Although Bush has stated he won't rule out use of atomic weapons--but who's gonna say he can't?)

So, 1441 looks flimsier & flimsier, but it doesn't matter. Saddam's done.
And he was a really bad guy.

And the ends justify the means, right?

Except we're not to the end. If you pro war types want to see this through, it's time to start writing your govt. to make sure that Iraq really does become a beacon of democracy & not just another puppet dictatorship set up to enrich US oil interests. I will do the same.
Old 11th April 2003
  #681
Lives for gear
 
Messiah's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon
Checked the link...the photo appears to have been taken sometime well after the event.
I agree it's taken after the event, Jon, but, "sometime well after the event"? What are you talking about? The personnel vehicle that pulled the statue down is clearly still there, so surely "well after" is wrong?

All this happened at around 7pm Baghdad time, it is dark by 8.30pm and it is clearly still light in that shot. Plus, all the US tanks are still round the square and there's the troops who were blocking the road behind, probably blocking certain Iraqi's for security reasons, still clearly visible.

I didn't think there was that many Iraqi's present anyway when I watched it live, I now think there were probably less than what I originally thought and that it was staged.
Old 11th April 2003
  #682
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Plus if that place was that crowded at 7 pm, could this place emptied so rapidly ? Did the people leaving the place were not in the way of those massive tank ?

mmh, Jon, your thoughts ?

malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #683
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

I mean that the photo was taken after the event. Why didn't the source publish a photo taken during the event instead?

Not that it's anywhere near as monumental a symbol IMO as the Berlin Wall falling. FWIW I was on that wall throughout the night of November 9, 1989...along with many thousands of other people...I remember it like it was yesterday.

Personally, I think the ousting of Saddam has gone about as well as anyone could reasonably have hoped for up to this point.

It's also getting interesting watching the growing hypocrisy of France, Russia and Germany as they attempt now to reap some of the rewards of an action they were so unwilling to participate in and did all they could to block. The St Petersburg summit was all about that.
Old 11th April 2003
  #684
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon

It's also getting interesting watching the growing hypocrisy of France, Russia and Germany as they attempt now to reap some of the rewards of an action they were so unwilling to participate in and did all they could to block. The St Petersburg summit was all about that.
Well Jon,

Read the post I made in the previous page, it is directly related IMHO.

hell, I'll repost it, until I get some answers and explanation, I think that truly enlight us on the Bush administration true motivations :


I quote myself :


Guys,

I don't Have time to read the last pages of this thread, I have a udge work to finish but I have to post that.

I heard on the radio that Mr Wolfowitz made a statement about billing France, Germany and Russia for not supporting US during that conflict.

PAY ATTENTION TO THIS

Especially all the pro-war cats, and Brian, for whom I have respect, cause I really want his thoughts about that.

Wolfowitz put an amount on this bill : 8 billion for France only (I'm not sure the exact amount, but what is important is that he is billing other countries)

What can we conclude from this statement :

1- In the head of Wolfowitz, who is by the way G.W.BUSH mentor along with Richard Pearl, this Iraq operation is now clearly a commercial business. He's suggestion of billing France and Germany is more or less like a fee to a club membership.

If he had humanitarian intentions about Iraq, he would have been just please to be right against detractors ... Such as Tony Blair is, I must say tutt


2- That the side effect of dividing Europe is totaly in GWB administration plan.

3- That putting that kind of sanction to an friendly country is way out of line : in fact, it is way out of line to do that to any democratic foreign country

4- That I'm that close to quit smoking Chesterfields, mmh, may be it is a good opportunity to quit smoking


Now we are trully seeing what this is all about, and I can't see how anyone here or anywhere could justify the fact that US gvt had avowable reasons to liberate Iraq.

Some of your gvt members are insane irresponsible ****heads IMHO

Waiting for your thoughts, I won't leave the room until then ...

malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #685
Lives for gear
 

Alrighty, then. I'm off to a lunch now, but really quickly.......


I think Wolfowitz is a bit worriesome. There I agree with you. Too easily hawkish for me, and I believe you will see even conservative Amercians like myself keep an eye on him and be ready to help shut him down if need be.

As far as money. We should not be billing anyone for anything. We, along with others in the coalition, elected to proceed here. It's stupid to expect other nations to help foot the bill. So I don't know where he came up with that, but I disagree with it. It just makes him look cheap and greedy.

OTOH, it is pretty obvious that the other countries are busy jockeying for their own positions.

The thing I heard that did make sense was from some American independent financial commentators. And this will end up being the real financial controversy here, IMO, since Wolfowitz suggestion is stupid and will be discounted.

I don't know about Germany, but Hussein owed France and Russia billions. For what, I'm not exactly sure (anybody know?) but I'm sure in Russia's case a good bit is for weapons.

So, for humanitarian reasons, it has been suggested that France, Russia and Germany forgive Iraq's debts in order to help these people. That would do much to liberate them, financially. If it's true that these people have suffered under Hussein, who is the one who incurred the debt, would it not be justice to forgive it? Let us see if those country's concern for the people of Iraq extends to their wallets.

On a side note, since Hussein's government never formally surrendered, but just disappeared (even the Iraqi Ambassadors don't know what happened), are those debts still enforceable? Good question.

Now that whole subject should cause some debate! And as I see it, those 3 countries will now be put in the uncomfortable position of explaining why the people of Iraq owe them those billions of dollars.

I expect that particular issue of debt may have had more to do with this entire situation, and the positions taken, than we know.

And yes, what I'm saying is that all of these governments, the US included, have their own agendas that are too often merely selfish.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 11th April 2003
  #686
Lives for gear
 
Midlandmorgan's Avatar
 

Malice, your name suits you...never in my days have I seen such hate permeating through a computer screen...

Amigo, it would appear that there is no pleasing you, nor getting you to consider any point of view other that US hating, but like it or not the US is here, and in spite of your best efforts we ain't going anywhere...to assume for one moment that anything you just posted has any shred of truth is staggering to the shield of logic.

Perhaps instead of publishing such crap, you could try to examine the facts and offer something even slightly useful...the only time bitching is valid is when the bitching is followed up by a valid solution to the problem.

And one more thing, if you don't mind - you are free to have an opinion, free to express your opinion, and actually encouraged to do so...but leave the childish name calling out. I have immediate family members and dear friends involved in both the military and political sides of this mess, and take serious offense to your personalization of these events. I suggest that if your hatred for me personally, my nation, my belief systems, and my way of life cannot be expressed in a manner consistent with civility, then you may consider starting your own society. This way, you can state what you wish, and inflict your personality on those under your charge...

While we are all waiting for that, please lighten up on the personal attacks. Thank you.
Old 11th April 2003
  #687
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

I agree with Brian's post.

Malice, he replied to your question in the same way that I would.

Those debts are a significant, though hardly entire, reason for the positions taken. I reckon they, along with grand geopolitics, fuel much more of it than the public opinion polls do.
Old 11th April 2003
  #688
Lives for gear
 
Messiah's Avatar
 

Midlandmorgan, you've been away too long. We've all made friends again and established that there's no US Haters here, as such. Check page 46 and get off the "everyone hates us" trip you're on every time you post.
Old 11th April 2003
  #689
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
I think Wolfowitz is a bit worriesome. There I agree with you. Too easily hawkish for me, and I believe you will see even conservative Amercians like myself keep an eye on him and be ready to help shut him down if need be.

As far as money. We should not be billing anyone for anything. We, along with others in the coalition, elected to proceed here. It's stupid to expect other nations to help foot the bill. So I don't know where he came up with that, but I disagree with it. It just makes him look cheap and greedy.
Brian, Jon, I'm relieve by your opinions, sincerly ...

At least we agree on that

malice
Old 11th April 2003
  #690
Lives for gear
 
cajonezzz's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon


It's also getting interesting watching the growing hypocrisy of France, Russia and Germany as they attempt now to reap some of the rewards of an action they were so unwilling to participate in and did all they could to block. The St Petersburg summit was all about that.

Agreed.
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