KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   

- Poll . 

Is war agains Iraq the answer?

Posted by  on Mar 9 2003
Yes! Iraq has not disarmed.25%25%25% 25%
Only with a new UN resolution.16%16%16% 16%
No! The weapons inspectors need more time.59%59%59% 59%
Votes: 2520
goto page: prev   1  2  3  4  5  6 


 Soem of you are lind

 by WinterWolf on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%

If you actually believe this war is about freedom and weapons of mass destruction you are a BLIND FOOL!

It is all about the oil and personal revenge. Do not believe the lies that the American Media companies tell you or even our president, the "liberate Iraq" statement is just a cover up.

US has been one of Iraq's and Sadam's best allies in the past, tehy didn't give a shit about what he did to his people than and they don't now! In the world of politics mroals don't exist, it is all one way or anotehr just to make you look better or gain power. The US even helped some dictators get back to power.

In addition, our presiden't family was for the nazis, yes that's right.

Reply to this


 Whoa whoa whoa...

 by anonymous on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%


Everyone calm down a few minutes. :) I know I get upset but...come on. Please.

I'd like to say that as much as I disagree with the "anti-war" stance, I am not opposed to people citing valid reasons. I wouldn't call them traitors. That's really uncalled for, don't you think? :)

I agree that there are some valid reasons for not going to war. I just happen to truly believe that the ones that are valid win out this time.

I don't support some of our previous military action in history, like support for death squads in El Salvador and various other countries, support for the Shah which ultimately led to screwing over a lot in the world when he fell, support for Marcos and many other dictators, and other things of that nature. We make mistakes just like any other nation and I never said that we were perfect. I believe, for instance, that we ought to have a nationwide medical service system for any citizen in this country, for one thing...so call me a socialist on one level and call me a neo-conservative on another. I don't happen to subscribe to any Republican ticket, or Democratic one, and the other parties out there are frankly too much of a joke for me to even consider.

Now, that being said, I'd like to mention a few things:

I was there on 9-11. I was almost killed on 9-11. I was one of those lucky New Yorkers who got away in time enough to only get covered with lots of ash on 9-11. I don't like people throwing 9-11 around without really understanding what it was like. I saw it, I was there, and most people were not. As a former photojournalist, I also was in other places and have experienced war. I've seen missiles coming over at me and blowing up nearby, and rockets, and grenades, and live bullet fire and many other unpleasant things and 9-11 still takes the cake. People who experienced 9-11 have experienced war because I have experienced war and I can tell you that it was nothing like I have ever seen before in my life.

Was I for the war in Afghanistan? You bet I was. I was only aggravated that it took so long to start and finish. And are most Afghanis glad that we bombed the hell out of the Taliban and liberated them? Well, the pictures of millions dancing in the streets in Kabul and other areas proved that, so who are you to tell them that they are wrong? Yes, innocent Afghanis died, but that is what happens in a war. And innocent Afghanis were being killed under the Taliban regime and it didn't look like it ever was going to end until we came along. Are they better off? You're damn right they are and your arguing it is fine with me, but pointless since most of them are infinitely grateful.

Am I glad we are going to do the same in Iraq? You bet I am. I know far too many Iraqis and Kurds to think that they don't want it to happen. If the "Arab world" really cared about their "Muslim brothers", not only would they make regimes of the like of Saddam Hussein's impossible to create, but they would insist that we remove him post-haste with extreme prejudice.

I am not one of those under the impression that rebuilding their country will be easy, but I know it can be done. War is never easy, nor is winning the war after the fact. But it can be done and they will be eternally better off for it.

Should the same happen in Syria and Saudi Arabia? In time, in time. If 9-11 taught me anything it is that the time for rhetorical games about "But he's worse" and "You have no right playing god" are worthless in the grand scheme of things. Is this a new kind of imperialist vision? Perhaps. But if it will free the world of several of the worst kinds of dictators in the history of mankind, the I do not see anything wrong with it. You can argue until you are blue in the face, shout about oil and innocent lives, and yell about corporate profits...I really just don't care. I'll put to you one question: was Afghanistan a better place before the war or after it? If you think it is worse off now, then I invite you to go and argue that line of discussion with the people in the square in Kabul. I am certain that they will truly feel for your "Innocent lives" argument and counterpunch most vociferously with blunter and much more realistic "arguments" of their own to demonstrate their true appreciation for your having cared for them before the U.S. stepped in and changed the world for them.

Kuwaitis hate us, perhaps, but ask any of them if we shouldn't have kicked Saddam out as well. I doubt that you will get any answers in support of Saddam's invasion. And remember: the same protesters out there now screaming "No blood for oil" and "It is all about oil" were also screaming it in 1991. I know because I photographed some of those protests and the slogans were the exact same. Kuwait may not like what we are about to do, but you don't see them screaming that it's all about the oil -because they were on the other side of that argument twelve years ago, and they felt very abandoned by all those "peace activists" out there. Ask them how they felt, and then ask some Iraqis how they feel.

I'll tell you how they feel. In the March 10th copy of the Weekly Standard is a story named "The Horrors of Peace". Perhaps you don't read that because it is a "conservative" paper, and that's fine, but you are missing out on the other point of view. And the other point of view is this: Iraqis want a war. And they want a war so much that they have been begging and pleading with us to do what is about to be done. And one Iraqi who is living here in the states put it so well when he said:

"If you want to protest that it's not okay to send your kids to fight, that's okay. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis. We've seen 5 million people protesting, but none of them were Iraqis. They don't know what's going on inside Iraq. France and whoever else, please shut up."

Are you going to tell him that he's wrong? Are you going to tell those millions of Iraqis that they just don't understand what war is and that they are better off living with Saddam than without? Are you going to explain to them, patiently, that the inspectors need more time because it really isn't about removing Saddam but disarming Iraq? Or about Oil?

Do you think that he will even care to listen to you? I don't.

And I would like to mention one last thing. It seems that so many people here attribute so much bad with such extreme prejudice of their own and without even thinking about it, that it becomes the worst kind of vitriol.

How do you know that Bush is "Evil"? That he is a "Hitler"? What makes you say that? Saddam has killed more people than Bush could ever dream of, even if he was able to execute every Al Qaeda member...and some of you refer to him as being Hitler and a Nazi? So what does that make Saddam Hussein? What does that make Hitler?

Bush is doing this because he truly believes in it, and so too with Tony Blair. Now, I don't really like Tony Blair, but he fills me with awe. Look at him, people. Look at him speaking on your TV. Does he look like he is really enjoying himself? Do you think that these people are not human and don't have feelings of their own? You try to attribute humanity to the monsters of the world, and you all seem to dehumanize those whom are trying to do good for the rest of us.

Look at Tony Blair. This is a man who doesn't even sleep anymore. His hair has gone grayer in the last month, visibly so, he is constantly trying to fight off a cold, he looks thinner, emaciated even. This is a man who is gambling everything in his life and fighting tooth and nail for it - because he believes, truly believes, he is doing good. I am not saying that he hasn't done bad in the past. I am quite certain that every politician, especially heads of state, have some dirty things on their hands. But for Pete's sake...will you look at him? Will you listen to him pleading with his own party not to abandon him? You accuse people like him and Bush, who is also feeling enormous pressure at this time, of doing it for filthy lucre? Do you, for one moment, think that as a head of state it would not be far easier and better to do something else for monetary gain? Be against any war all you like, but for heaven's sake...do not accuse those people at the drop of a hat of simply doing it for the sake of corruption. I do not know anyone - anyone at all - who would suffer what Tony Blair is suffering through merely to get a fatter wallet. He already has enough power to make himself ten times as rich with a tenth of the trouble and without millions of people screaming at him that he is a murderer before he has ever even signed the order for ever pulling the trigger.

You think that he does this for mere oil?

Then I really think that you do not understand human nature, or people, or leadership. I truly, honestly, feel shame for people who think that. Maybe he is wrong, but do not denigrate him in that way. And do not do it to Bush either.

I did not vote for Bush, but I am proud of him. He doesn't speak well, and he makes mistakes when he does, but I am proud because he has shown his quality when it comes to issues of life and death. I am sorry for those who cannot see it. I have met his father when I used to cover the White House, and I have met Clinton, and I have met Dole, and I can only imagine what Bush must be going through.

Protest all you like, but please don't attribute unproved allegations which are nonsensical to those who try to serve our countries in such times.

Somebody here said that you all don't know what War is like. Well I do and I would like to say this: You all do not know what being a leader in war is like. None of us do.

Nat Harari.

Reply to this


 Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by flavuloid on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%
Anillón S.A.

Well, well... Now that's what I call a post. It is refreshing to see there are some people that can actually use their brains to express ideas and opinions that may be different from what some of us think (hint hint, jab).

I really want to thank you. I strongly disagree with you, but at least I get to see the other side.

But then, why do I still think this is for mere oil?

You say 9-11 taught you that the time for rethorical games about "But he's worse" and "You have no right playing god" are worthless in the grand scheme of things.

Well, if recent history of USA military actions taught me anything it is that we can't expect to believe this is about the good guys, and the totally evil guys. And that the USA is by no means a 'champion of freedom' as Mr. Bush so much like to call it.

It always comes down to one thing. Power, be it economical or political. They are often found together. Does Bush do this for the only reason of freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein? A bad joke. Does he want the world to believe that maybe it is not the only reason, but the compelling one? Don't make me laugh again. Does he want us to believe this is a mean of self-defense? He has consistently failed to do so. Do you think othwerwise? The vast majority of the world isn't convinced this has anything to do with self-defense.

What do you want us to expect? Past USA governments have shown to us they can invade countries for such reasons as protecting the ownership of a banana exporting company! 'Corporate America' at its best.

Is it crazy to think oil has everything to do with it? It is an important reason, and strategic presence in the Middle East is another. If I weren't right then why is it that Saddam and the US government were so in love back in the 80's? Because killing irani people was The Right Thing To Do (TM). It didn't matter if they had to deal with a muderer. Why go back in time? If it all were about freedom and goodness on Earth and wars were justifiable then the US should be invading Israel and forcing its gorvenment to comply with the corresponding UN resolutions that talk about the conformation of two nations, one for the israelis, and another for the palestinians (sorry about taking on Israel again, but it's a good example). But when it comes to that matter, freedom isn't important anymore. So it is not that crazy to think it is about oil.

I am sure there are many iraqis wanting Saddam out of power. I am sure we will be seeing thousands dancing in the streets of Bagdad. But I am also sure that there are lots of iraqi people that would prefer the US to go mind its own business and leave them alone. Many of them will also be dancing with the crowd. But I would too if I knew war was finally over and I no longer had to be fearing for my life and those of my loved ones.

I know it is a dangerous business to go into the following issue, but have you ever wondered why is the USA a popular target for all this terrorist attacks? Before sending hate mail let me make clear I don't think there can ever be a justification for terrorism, and that this is one of the things Mr. Bush could call evil and have me agreeing with him. But the question would still remain.

Mr. Bush once said terrorists attacked the US because they hate the 'american way of life'... Well, they may not like it, but I am quite convinced they don't 'give a ****' about how people in the US like to live.

This world is full of evil, insane and abominable people. And the 'we can do whatever we want -- we know best -- we are superior -- we go wherever we want and force things to be the way we like' attitude is a strong ally of them.

There are some people capable of doing anything to get what they want. Shouldn't we keep that in mind when trying to understand the human nature, or people, or leadership?

And of poor Tony Blair... maybe it is a bad case of guilt.

Again, you say 9-11 taught you that the time for rethorical games about "But he's worse" and "You have no right playing god" are worthless in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe with things being as they are it is useless, worthless. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by jab51270 on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%

Do you really think I pro war? I am not! I, and my siblings, are proudly serving the USA everyday as active duty members of her military. If we go to war I will be putting my life in the line of fire along with them. War is the last thing I want to happen. Unfortunately mar does happen, and probably will in the case of Saddam. I will perform my duty for my country. Not because I believe in war, but because I believe and trust in my country.

Yes my original was heated. It was more of a personal 'vent' than anything else. At the time I wrote it I couldn't have cared less if I made valid points or not. I took a personal front to all of the 'anti-American' sentiment I was reading and I acted upon it. As would you.

You want to attack me just because there was no substance in my post? I say you're a hypocrit. For the reason that most of the anti-war post were just as much the same blabber I posted, just going to the other extreme. Yet you did not attack them.

Regardless of the world situation, I felt the open source community was just that, a community. One that could put personal differences aside for a common goal (KDE/Linux). When I read all of the ani-Americanism postings, I lost a little faith in that community. I was upset, and I am sorry. Personal attacks can go both ways, and I felt compelled to do so.

If you wish to continue to attack me, go on ahead and continue to do so. Depending on where you live that is your right and freedom, just as it is mine.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by herschel on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%

There's definitely been an inflatory inadequate use of the word "anti-Americanism"...
Do people consider the warmongers in Washington to be America?
Of course not.
When people are condemning warcrimes, commited by US military abroad, are they insuating that all Americans are criminals?
Of course not.
Granted, some things that have been said are close to the limit but I haven't seen one example of anti-Americanism here.
(maybe I'm just numbed a little by the anti-semitism debate we had in my country a while ago where the accusation of anti-semitism was excessively used as killer-argument to put down justified criticism of Israel's palestina policy)
Most people can very well distinguish the US people and it's achievements from the US administration and it's policies.
Unfortunately they often say Americans when actually referring to the state and not it's people.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Whoa...

 by anonymous on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%

Yes, I didn't attack all of the other 'blabbery'. But you can't deny you put yourself as the first and most obvious target.

Anyway, the worst thing I probably said was that a post like yours had to be written with brain functions turned off. That is an exaggeration, of course.

And indeed, regardless of the world situation, the open source / free software community is one where you can put personal differences aside for a common goal, or there wouldn't be KDE, or Linux, or anything else.

Not agreeing with your government isn't the same thing as hating the people of the United States of America. Why am I a traitor for thinking somebody should be making your government understand that you are part of a whole world, much bigger than just the US territory?

Your nation has been to war before, and many times without a good, righteous reason. The rest of the world is slowly growing tired of this kind of abuse and you bet there are sick people taking advantage of this.

I hope someday, be it a thousand years from now, we will all see the world as the only nation worth fighting for.

Good luck.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by anonymous on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%


Interesting thoughts. :)

A few things to clarify: Again, I do not believe that this country always represents freedom and democracy abroad. I firmly opposed many international support and actions in the past and shall continue to do so. For instance, I believe that our support for Saudi Arabia is absolutely disgusting.

Now, that being said, it brings us to the point about oil.

Yes, in truth, part of the reason for this war is about oil. Both the French and their cadre, and the Americans and our cadre, have a vested interest in the oil fields. There is no doubt about it. I support the war but I will readily admit that a major part of it is about oil.

But, and here is where I find extreme difference in the chants of "no blood for oil": It isn't as simple as you think it is.

First of all, 99% of all people chanting that have no idea how the oil industry actually works. It has become so internationalized that it doesn't really matter which national company is in which country, for the most part. The fact is that oil is a wholly international business. Oil is sold through a collective pool and not directly from a pipeline extending from one country to another. Oil revenues are tied to an international market and do not reflect individual deals made on different soil. Basically, it has very little to do with individual profit and much to do with control of the substance.

And here is where we get to the crux of the matter. We support Saudi Arabia and we protect it. Your mention of the reasons for terrorism: on a basic level, yes...our being in Saudi Arabia is *one* of the reasons why we were hit on September 11th. Of course, Bin Laden merely cites the fact that our unclean feet are on holy soil, but most people don't like to debate Islamo-fascist theology because they feel very uncomfortable and politically incorrect, but it is true that our mere presence there is anathema to him.

Now, let us be real. Bin Laden and his cohorts and supporters (as in, many other groups aside from Al Qaeda) see Iraq as part of greater Arabia and our moving from Iraq from Saudi Arabia will do nothing to quell that animosity. This is absolutely true and we cannot forget it. The war in Iraq will just move the pieces around, but people seem to forget about one very important factor in this equation. If we take Iraq and build a pro-Western democracy there, it will free us from staying in Saudi Arabia, enabling us to leave that country post-haste. Will this change the greater oil equation? In a sense, it will. Saudi Arabia, however, needs to be left for one very good and simple reason: They betrayed us and Bush and the rest of the White House know it. Only, right now, they are powerless to do so. If we leave Saudi Arabia and yet continue our containment of Saddam, you will *then* see a *real* oil disaster hit the world because, at that point, at least 50% of the oil resources of the world will be in the hands of fanatics - secular state fanatics on Saddam's side, and religiously fundamentalist fanatics on the Saudi side. There is no doubt that this Saudi regime shall and will fall as soon as we leave, and what matters in a world market is that 50% of the world's most precious resource would suddenly be unattainable. Be as "green" as you like, the fact is that the world still moves on oil. Trade, finances, manufacturing...everything moves on oil. That is simply the reality of the world today. I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but it is simply the fact and nothing in the current sphere of science, technology, or even politics can change it.

So? Is it about oil? Yes in part it is because we want to be rid of Saudi Arabia as an "ally". But the only way to do this is if we free up the other half of the oil reserve there, and that means getting rid of Saddam. I admit that it is a very cynical and brutal game of might, but anyone who studies that region and, indeed, much of the rest of the world has to understand that this is the way the game is played. Talk in the West all you like about peace and brotherly love, understanding for other cultures, democracy, freedom, debate and discourse, ideas and even rhetoric; it matters not one whit because in the rest of the world, you open your mouth and you get shot. Nothing you say here, or anywhere in the West, will change that. Nothing. It is nice to be an idealist with these grand visions of transforming the world, but the debates in the EU chambers about laws governing all of the rights of people in the world do nothing, absolutely nothing, to change the way the rest of the world is, thinks, and behaves. And even if the one billion people of Europe and America march against this and try to change it with protests until they are blue in the face, they will accomplish nothing, absolutely nothing, to change it.

While I agree that it is never too late to start, I also agree that there is a reality which one must understand and deal with, however unpleasant. The world is not a pretty place, and sometimes it is downright bloody and ugly. We have to live in it, and survive in it, however, and that means sometimes acting within those rules which dictate the actions of others, or we will simply lose the game. September 11th was only one example that we are and have been losing that game because we consistently ignored it during the 1990's, much to our extreme detriment.

Getting rid of Saddam is a first step in trying to change the world out there, at least in the Middle East. People have to understand that we must start somewhere and the place to start is where we know we will win and send a strong message to others: your time is up. It's time to change the game and the rules because we aren't going to ignore you anymore.

Now, people will throw around the concept of "might doesn't make right". Well, I know it doesn't and I'm glad it doesn't. But what people forget to mention is "sometimes the right have the might". One cannot agree on one without the other. Not all violence is bad violence and not all wars are unnecessary. If anything, history shows us that wars are actually sometimes the answer. Citing that "war is never the answer" is an absolutely moronic charge which, I humbly submit, is full of lack of understanding of history and the real world at large. I can respect a pacifist if he or she has thought out their views and come to a simple overall view which states that they cannot, personally, inflict violence on others no matter what the reason. I believe it is completely ludicrous, but I admire that sense of commitment. I must take fault, however, with the "pacifists" chanting in the streets because I know that most, if not almost all, of them are not true pacifists but true contrarians. Sometimes I can respect a contrarian, but not when it comes to the lives of others - especially when it comes to the lives of those to which they profess to speak.

This is what leads me to believe that the "anti-war" movement is merely a rhetorical, cynical, contrarian movement less concerned about Iraqi lives than just venting at what they see as giant corporate evil. That is something which I most definitely do not respect. I am not necessarily on the side of all corporations, but it behooves them to watch the result of their actions, or lack thereof in this case, with the reality which actually exists abroad.

It is no wonder, then, that people like Christopher Hitchens have left the movement of the "Left" for this very reason of absolute disgust. And while I dislike some of Hitchens personal thoughts on many issues, I can absolutely understand why he was completely fed up with the Left as a whole. His reasoning is simple: Those that used to chant against the dictatorships of the world which our government used to support; those who used to advocate armed rebellion against those very dictators for the sake of freedom of the people; those marching in the streets under the "No War" banners are now the very same people who are trying to stop us from removing just such dictators. They marched against the action in Afghanistan stating that we had no business getting rid of the Taliban, and they march against any war in Iraq, stating that it is better to have no action there and leave Saddam in power than not. And regardless of the reason as to why we are removing Saddam, the end result is the same: he will be gone.

Indeed, that is the crux of the matter. Those idealists have now become the cynics, and the cynic conservatives which they once chanted down are now the idealists who advocate a better democracy for the country and region as a whole in no less terms than what the radical movements used to support for the same goals: armed conflict.

And so, with him, I have to declare that while the world is cynical, and while the situation is a cynical one, and while we play by cynical and brutal rules, we who support the war are not cynics. We are, in effect, the true idealists.

I stated before that I used to be a young idealist, and it is true. Now I am an older idealist, but my goal of justice has never changed. I have always supported the downfall of all of those evil regimes, and I do not see any reason to stop supporting that goal. Say what you will, contest all you like, it is simply a matter of course that they shall fall only through violent change and, in so doing, shall make the world into a better place.

To support regime change in Iraq is to support the very concept that the brutal rules of the world can and must be changed. We must start somewhere. Were we to start with North Korea, I have no doubt that the marchers would be screaming "Why start with them? Why not with Saddam? The Iraqis have been under sanctions for years!" Everyone knows that this is the case, that these same arguments would be made in reverse, and thus my admiration for the marchers of ideals from the era of the 60's and 70's has turned into contempt for the marchers of today.

So, we will take Iraq and rebuild it, and leave Saudi Arabia. It may fall, and probably will, but our business with them shall be done. And make no mistake about it: we have already been asked to leave by the regime in Saudi Arabia, effective as soon as the war with Iraq is concluded. And we shall do so and they know it. And then what?

People mention Israel. Well, I will mention it as well. Israel will have peace when those little petty dictatorships of the region will hate Jews less than they love democracy. U.N. resolutions against it are an absolute farce in the context of human justice. For those who think that this is about the "occupied territories", please do your historical research. The PLO was not created in 1967 after the six-day war. The PLO was created in 1964, three years before Israel ever set foot in Judea and Samaria. The PLO and, let us be honest, the Arab world now at large, refuses to even recognize the fact that there was a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. Of course such noble historical sources as Josephus are simply taken for "Zionist fabrications". This would include the many Roman surveys and political writings of the time of the fall of the Temple, the Greek historical pages of the region, the surveys done by the Ottomans, the Crusaders, the British, and all the others through history. I give this as an example because it is people who consistently scream out "Free Palestine" whom are ignoring this basic fact: Arabism post and present do not recognize the rights of Jews, and never have. Indeed, the Arab world is the only section of the world which has become completely Judenrein. While protesters march and scream in the streets about Palestinian "rights" they don't seem to know, or even understand, that it is the death penalty for any Jew to own any land or property in Jordan - a ruling still in effect today. I would mention that not even the Nazis had such a rule. Nazis confiscated the land and property, but Jews in Jordan were simply - immediately - shot or hanged at Jaffa gate. I would mention that it is illegal for any Jew to enter Saudi Arabia; and that to enter the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one must *prove* with historical lineage, that one is not a Jew. Tom Friedman recently visited Saudi Arabia after September 11th and had to obtain a royal "exception" because he is Jewish. While some Jews have visited, it is only the most top level dignitaries and public figures which are given the exception to the rule, quietly and secretly. The regular law still states, however, that Jews are verboten.

In Syria, Jews don't have any rights at all. While people may view that all Syrians are denied rights, Jews don't even get the right to a trial, which other Syrians do, however flawed those trials may be. In Iran, Jews are not allowed to pray in a place which could be seen by the public. In Egypt, there are penalties for doing business with Jewish trade groups, and they have recently run a huge series on Egyptian TV, broadcast through the entire Arab world, based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to the acclaim of everyone in the Arab world at large. Tens of millions watched it during the middle of each day during Ramadan this year.

I can point to more but I won't because I don't have to. Why do I mention all of this? I mention it because this is what happens in fascist dictatorships whose only control of the population is for them to vent against the old adorable scapegoat of history. And frankly, I'm sick of it. I'm tired of it. It is time that this disgusting practice stop. It is time for the Arab world to recognize that Arafat was offered a plan for peace and turned it down, started a war, and ended his whole organization in the gutter. It is time for them to admit that the Palestinians once more completely screwed up beyond belief for one reason only: they hate Jews. They say so quite openly and a quick perusal of the documents at http://www.memri.org will show the doubters that they no longer have to doubt. Yes, they hate Jews, and Christians are just second on that list too, I might add. The fact that they have so many nations in the U.N. is the only reason that the U.N. continually passes resolutions against Israel. None were passed against Russia for killing hundreds of thousands in Chechnya. None were passed against Syria for killing hundreds of thousand. No resolutions are passed telling Syria to get the hell out of Lebanon. No resolutions are passed against Iran for supporting the Hezzbollah - the terrorist organization which has killed more Americans than any other aside from Al Qaeda. No, none pass because anyone who kills Jews in the Arab world is seen as a "freedom fighter". Well tough if they don't like the fact that the U.S. doesn't go with that line of thought, and tough if Europe gets in a frenzy that we veto those resolutions.

When democracy comes to that region, things will slowly change and that hatred will go away. This is what the entire game is about: changing those dictatorships, one at a time, and without any apology for doing it, because it is the *right* thing to do. September 11th taught many Americans many things, but it also taught us that while we had been wrong in some things, we were right when it came to acting out our ideals because had that happened ten years earlier, September 11th might never have happened and the world would have been a much better place to live in by now.

With haste,

Nathaniel Harari.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by herschel on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

You've put up a very detailed yet absolutely one sided view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

Here's something for the balance

The "generous" Oslo offer

Why do some Palestinians hate Israelis? http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/levy_terror-infrastructure.cfm

Whether you like it or not, they are your bastard offspring. Everything they know about hate, you taught them. Everything they forgot about humanity, you made them forget. Give them a hug now, as they have proven themselves worthy of their parents - you -- Gabriel Ash

You see, there's always more than but one side...

And before you rub some Anti-semitism allegations in my face...
I don't deny Israels right to exist, I have no resentiments against the israeli people or jews in general whatsoever.
But I don't close my eyes and ignore the simple facts of the conflict. And to me it's quite clear that only Israel can make the first step to end it by stopping the illegal, brutal occupation and acknowledge Palestines right to exist. As a matter of fact, even a majority of the Israelis themselves think that this would be the right thing to do.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

I am not going to rub charges of anti-Semitism in your face. I daresay that I have disagreed with some Israeli policies in the past as well, and I do not consider myself to be anti-Semitic.

In fact, many Israelis, at the time, supported the Barak government and his offer. To be quite specific, more than 65% of the country did support him at the time. It isn't anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic to say that there should be peace concessions.

I would like to mention something about the facts however. For example, at this link that you posted: http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/faruqui_worsethan.cfm.cfm, Faruqui is basically talking out of his ass which, I might add, the Palestinian delegation was as well. Deborah Sontag did a piece over a year ago in the New York Times wherein she tried to analyze why the talks at Camp David failed. In it, she mentions the "three canton" plan put forward by the Clinton and Barak teams which Arafat rejected.

This is utter nonsense. There was, indeed, no such "canton" plan. Mrs. Sontag found out about this "plan" purely from the side of the Palestinian delegation. Purely, in fact, from one particular set of people from that side.

In response, Dennis Ross - outraged beyond belief at the lie - actually received permission from the former Clinton team to publish what was actually put on the table. Yes, he actually published the real map of what was offered - it was drawn up, by hand, very meticulously and he offered it to the world press to see exactly what was offered.

There were no "three cantons" or any such "cantons" at all. There were two versions of the map. One with about 98% of the West bank and 100% of Gaza offered with only one large chunk of inroad from West to East to accommodate Israel's biggest settlement which was further compensated with an equal amount of land (around 2%) coming from East to West into Israel proper to give back that much equal territory. The plan included a special road from Gaza to the West Bank which was inviolate, running across Israel to give free passage to Palestinian passengers and subject to Palestinian law and not Israeli law.

The second map was drawn for the benefit of the Jordanians - at the request of the Jordanians - with a sliver of land to the East along the Jordan river for a military presence there for either Israel, Jordan, or even U.N. forces to patrol. This map was immediately withdrawn when presented and was never actually considered.

There are even documents from interviews - in the Arab press - at http://www.memri.org with members of the Palestinian delegation whom have recently admitted several things:

1) There were never any "cantons"
2) They did indeed agree to the map, but Arafat rejected it and some, privately, still blame him for it.
3) Oslo was merely a "Trojan horse" with which to destroy Israel.

This last point is extremely important. The chief negotiator of the Palestinian Delegation, Faisal al-Husseini, a man who was absolutely respected in the West for being a "moderate", died in the summer of 2001 in Kuwait. Before he died, he gave an extended interview, which you may find translated on the Memri site, and which made huge waves in the international arena.

And what he said was this:
"Third, the [ancient] Greek Army was unable to break into Troy due to [internal] disputes and disagreements [among themselves]. The Greek forces started retreating one after the other, and the Greek king ended up facing the walls of Troy all by himself, and he too suffered from illnesses and [internal] disputes, and ended up leading a failed assault on Troy's walls."

"[Following these events] the people of Troy climbed on top of the walls of their city and could not find any traces of the Greek army, except for a giant wooden horse. They cheered and celebrated thinking that the Greek troops were routed, and while retreating, they left a harmless wooden horse as spoils of war. So they opened the gates of the city and brought in the wooden horse. We all know what happened next."

"Had the U.S. and Israel not realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls."

"Despite the fact that we entered these walls in order to build, unlike the Greeks who entered in order to destroy, I now tell you all, all those to whom I spoke in a secret meeting during the days of Oslo: 'Climb into the horse and don't question what type of material the horse is made of. Climb into the horse, and we shall transform your climbing into that horse into a beginning of a building era rather than an era of the end of hope."'

"And indeed, there are those who climbed unto the horse and are [now] inside [the PA territory] whether they supported the Oslo Accords or not."

Q: "But the horse began to ignore criticism from the people, both from those who supported Oslo and those who opposed it. [It ignored] criticism about the true democracy that should lead the horse and about the horse's corruption."

A: "Your words remind me of the famous meeting we had with all the Palestinian factions three years following Arafat and the PLO's return to Gaza?the debate revolved around the same issues you are raising - i.e., democracy, corruption, etc." "In that meeting - and those who attended are still alive and can attest to it - I asked to speak. I told everyone: Three years ago I said 'Climb into the horse' and everyone entered into the horse and the horse entered into the walled-in [area]. Now, the time has come for us to say: 'Come out of the horse and start working. Don't stay inside the horse and don't waist time and energy while you are inside the horse arguing whether this was a good horse or not. Look, it is thanks to this horse that you were able to get into the walled-in city."'

"So come down out of the horse and start working for the goal for which you entered the horse to begin with. In my opinion, the Intifada itself is the coming down out of the horse. Rather than getting into the old arguments?this effort [the Intifada] could have been much better, broader, and more significant had we made it clearer to ourselves that the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger?"

"Praise Allah, by now we have all come out of the horse, those who were with Arafat and those from the opposition. Personally, I never had any complaints regarding the fact that they entered the horse while being opposed to it. However, I would have complaints had they stayed inside the horse and never came out of it. Now that we all came out of the horse, I ask of you and of all journalists to lay aside all the analyses of past events, all the old disputes, and judge people on the basis of what they are actually doing now?our slogan from now on should be "The Intifada is always right?"''

You can read more of it at MEMRI, if you wish.

I must also say that Clinton and Barak, as well as some others have come forward and publically stated that Arafat was offered exactly what it was rumored to be true - around 98% of all of the territory, including sovereignty over the Temple Mount but not the Western Wall, shared rule of some parts of the Old City, East Jerusalem, and even equal water rights, and it was rejected for some simple reason: Arafat could not agree to end the conflict forever.

Now, people at Zmag can make up whatever stories that they would like (and often do, I might add) but it does not make them true. In recent times, some Palestinians on the team have come out privately and said that these were actually the terms offered and Arafat should have taken them. And other Palestinian intellectuals have severely criticized Arafat for having turned it down, after two years of conflict brought them nothing but bloody ruin.

So I wouldn't put any faith into what Zmag is saying because, quite simply, it's full of baloney. It just isn't true.

And one has to pause for a moment and think: If the chief negotiator of the Palestinian Delegation saw this as merely one more phase in the destruction of Israel...what is the point of negotiating in the first place?

I was supportive of the peace deal. I wanted it to happen. But when I read that interview, I was outraged. Here we had an entire process which was supposed to lead to peace, and the other side was *lying* the entire time and merely using it to host a war against Israel. That is not making peace and it is not respectable. It is absolutely inane that anyone would even consider going back to Oslo when the leader of one team had readily admitted that it was a series of deals not made in good faith.

So I'm sorry for all those killed in the conflict, but it doesn't change the fact: if they had accepted the deal, things would have been different. And if they had *believed* in the deal, nobody would be killing anyone today. Barak would still be in office and the Palestinian economy wouldn't be in absolute ruin.

And another thing I'd like to add before I sign out for a while: All I ever hear is that this conflict is Sharon's doing.

That too is an outrageous lie.

Maybe Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was the excuse to start the conflict (and the Mr. Rajoub has admitted finally that this was not true), but it was Barak who was in office at the time. Barak, in fact, was in office for a good several weeks during this second "Intifada" before Sharon ever came to be Prime Minister. The fact that Sharon started all this as Prime Minister are not the facts. This all started under Barak's watch and he would never have been ousted and Sharon would never have come to be Prime Minister if this little bloody war hadn't broken out. People can point to the fact that he went to the Temple Mount...but so what?

Excuse me for being extremely upset about this but: Why can't Jews visit the Temple Mount? Why? It's our holiest site, you know. I'm not denying anyone's right to pray at the Mosque, but I'd *really* like to know why Jews and Christians cannot go up there as well. Just because a politician of another faith decides to visit the Temple Mount does not mean that a war should start. That is simply unacceptable, wrong, and religiously fascist and I do not abide by anyone even tolerating that point of view with a "but" or a "well". It is simply wrong. Everyone should be allowed on the Temple Mount just as everyone is allowed at the Western Wall and at the Holy Sepulcher. There are none who are turned away, and I utterly reject the notion that some places are Verboten for Jews for religious reasons. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone excuse that sort of thing in the slightest. I cannot even imagine the uproar it would cause were the Jerusalem Rabbinate suddenly to declare that only Jews may visit the Western Wall and synagogues. Would any of you excuse that then? Would any of you think that it would be worth a war if somebody broke that taboo? A war that has claimed thousands now on that stupid pretext?

Zmag can publish all the made up stories that it likes to publish, it still doesn't make them true. And it doesn't make religiously fascist attitudes any easier to swallow. I *hate* that sort of acceptance and I don't really care what the rationalizations are behind it: it's simply wrong. Denying that the Jews have their deepest religious tie to that Temple Mount, denying it ever existed, denying that Jews ever even lived in Israel before 1948, and proclaiming that all those historical texts are simply "Zionist Fabrications" is absolutely intolerable.

People want peace? That will *never* happen as long as these are accepted lines of thought in the Arab world. I utterly reject that mentality.

Yours in haste,

Nat Harari.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

"Now, people at Zmag can make up whatever stories that they would like (and often do, I might add [herschel : and I might overrule]) but it does not make them true."

That is indeed the very reason the two of us could never come to an agreement for I can say exactely the same about your sources.
Both of us have choosen whom we trust, both of us have made a different choice.
While I have yet to encounter a case where the facts, either obvious from the beginning or actual truths emerging in the aftermath of events (babys taken out of incubators in Kuwait, concentration camps in Kosovo, maybe ex post handrawn maps with no binding character towards a long dead process, whatever) prove people like Chomsky, Fisk or Pilger fundamentally wrong, you will probably claim the same about your sources.
I have no reason to mistrust Israelis who, with a heavy heart, try to tell the world what wrong their country is doing since they can't stand such unjustice, who let themselves be beaten up and shot at by radical settlers to help impoverished people reap their olives, vital for their survival. Risking their lives just to falsely put their fatherland in a bad light?

3) Oslo was merely a "Trojan horse" with which to destroy Israel

Well, seeing the oslo process as a trojan horse works as well with changed roles.
The trusty palestines, stopping all resistance in the hope of a sovereign, peaceful future, while ortodox and rightwing forces in Israel accxelerate the settlement and thus the associated ethnic cleansing of palestine land.

3') Oslo was merely a "Trojan horse" with which to cover the destruction of Palestine

Of course this conflict is not solely Sharons doing, there are always two sides, but I don't have the slightest doubt that he's the driving force.

"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer... Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint... Even if you prove to me that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care... We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough... Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered, just one If anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms... Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us.... And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal... What you don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it."
Ariel Sharon, December 1982
This might explain why noone in his right mind would consider Sharon a suitable partner in a peace process...

I've never heard that jews or christians were forbidden to visit the temple mount.
Sharon doing this in an intentionally provacative manner is a different thing.

Considering that there was no state Israel before '48 denying this is not directly wrong.
No one denies that jews lived in palestine before 1948, peacefully, side by side with arabs and christians.
Then they started a war, expelled the arabs from half of palestine and founded a state, conistent with a UN decision (they brutal way they did it is another matter).
The UN never said it should be a ethnically "clean" jew-only state, though. Arabs aren't allowed to buy land in Israel btw. (you mentioned something the other way round earlier)
1967 the UN decided that there shall be 2 states within the present (1967) borders. The arabs are willing to accept that, the Israeli people accept that, the radical Zionists won't.

This is why I think it's the latter, people like Sharon who have to change first, in order to make peoce possible.

In the end everyone has to decide for themselves whose arguments and facts they find more consistent, reasonable and persuasive and that's the very way it should be.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by herschel on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

That former post was me, herschel
What's wrong with this anonymous thing...


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

Interesting post. :)

I actually chuckled when I read it. No offense but, you're wrong. :)

That quotes that everyone attributes to Sharon is actually a lie. He never said that. No he didn't, and if you do your research before quoting things like that, you will discover that Oz said about it: "I have never met or interviewed Sharon". The person who then quoted this, Mr. Jensen of the Rocky Mountain News, was forced to retract his story and apologize.

This is a very well documented case and I urge you to look it up. Every leftist outfit that I see out there quotes that quote and that is exactly the problem: They have bought into lies to suit their own purposes, and rather big and defaming ones, as a matter of fact.

I don't know where you get your facts from aside from Zmag, because Arabs in Israel are allowed to buy land, build on it, and even run for government. There are, in fact, several Arab ministers elected every election in the Knesset since 1948. Arabs have all the rights that Jews have in Israel. I have no idea where you got the idea that they don't, but it is absolutely false. They may buy, sell, build, construct, and resell. They may vote and run for office, and even volunteer for the military. They are not forced to serve, by the way, but many of them do. Many of the best trackers in the Army are Bedouins - all volunteers for one of the most dangerous jobs in the army.

Many of the most elite soldiers also happen to be Druze Arabs - all volunteers and some of the best fighters in Israel.

About starting the war in 1948 - excuse me? Which historical sources are you reading? Did it say anything about five armies invading Israel to "Drive the Jews into the sea"? Did it mention at all the fact that the moment the U.S. recognized Israel, Truman said that it would be the shortest lived state in history because of the threat from the Arab nations? Did it say anything about the Arab press itself editorializing that the Arab leaders were to blame for the refugee problem in Lebanon because of their hasty war against "the Jews"?

Probably not, since it can't even get such an important quote right. I'll disagree and debate with people who don't put up lies and fabrications as evidence. I'm sorry to say that if these are the "trusted" historical references to which you are referring, there really can be no argument....


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa whoa whoa..

 by herschel on: Mar 15 2003
Score 50%

If you had read carefully you would have noticed that I wrote they started a war and expelled arabs from palestine and [then] founded a state. Actually, the hostilities might have started already in december '47 after Britain refused to implement the UN recommendations of a partition plan.
Till May 1948 (when Israel was proclaimed) more then 200.000 palestines (first wave of refugees) had been expelled. Various massacres had taken place, like "Dir Yassin" (09.04.1948) a village where IZL (Irgun Tzvai Leumi) and LHI (Lohamei Herut Israel) underground army units slaughtered some 250 villagers.
There were also attacks from arabs on Jews so it was to some degree a mutual conflict.

You are talking about a different war (war of independence) when five neighboring arab countries started an offensive on the newly proclamed state (14 may 1948). Indeed, this war, too, started in 1948 and can to some extend even be seen as a succession of the former so it's quite understandable that you confused that.

Yes, Israeli arabs are granted the same rights as all Israelis, buying land included.
I was talking about those arabs who were expelled and want to return to their old hometowns and vilages in Israel. They aren't allowed to buy land while other foreigners (if that term is even appropriate for palestines) are.
And Jews proudly fought in the german military in WWI and formally had the same rights as all germans but still they were treated as 2nd class citizens as are arabs in Israel as the recent non-admittance of Arab representatives by the electoral comittee (which was revoked by the
supreme court later) made clear.

According the quote, you're right, shame on me. I merely rememberd some parts, typed them into google and simply copied the whole statement without further research, my bad. I apaolgize for my lack of diligence.
In 'Oz book it's a mister "Z" who's mentioned as originator, but his discription fit rather well to Sharon thus the popular minsunderstanding was created.
It's probably the statement of another Israeli General who wanted to stay anonymous.
The author indeed said that it wasn't Sharon later.

I still stick to my conviction that Sharon is, by no means, a man of peace, though.



 by protoman on: Mar 13 2003
Score 50%

I don't like Saddms, but I can't understand some thing for more than I try:

Why Iraq is a manace? They really are broken and don't have any weapons anymore, just some trash.

A country that don't accept the creating of a neghborhood country and invades it, and have mass destruction weapons shold be attacked? Even with a veto there is a "moral" autorization for waging war againt this country?
The why, I ask why, US made dozens of vetos protecting Israel? Really good americans should defend a attack agains Israel next to the one on Iraq, right?
You guys know that until last year torture was accepted under Israely laws?

I'm glad I live in brasil, we heva our problems with drugs traffics, but we don't thing throwing a bomb in some places as Rio de Janeiro's "favelas" is the solution :P
Why Spain don't bomb ETA too?

This all makes me sad. First because some countries as Iraq and Israel exists and do what they want without interference.
Second because of two measure countries like US that attacks Iara and defends Israel.
Tird because of countries like Israel and US that are trying to block International Penal Court that could help to improve things agains countries that think they can do everthing they want... :(

Reply to this


 my point of view

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

as i see the matter, the war on iraq serves
a purpose of dealing with the terrorist menance for the following reasons:
1) iraq has and is sponsoring terrorist groups and individuals. being an israeli, the most valid proof is the sponsporship of
the palstinians 'shahid's familities (in english it mean martyrs, in hebrew: suicide bombers, and general suppliers of explosives in places like busses, cinemas, discotequses, schools, etc.)
--it's a local middle eastern example, yet i realize that it may seem invalid, as the game of israli hatred and the ideal of killing the 'zionist enemy' is quite popular in the region.

2) by cutting of the chain of funds to some of the terrorist groups, and maintainig a stable, central arab country in good term with the its neighbours and the rest of the world, other countries in the area may follow suit; that is if the US and the international community will be able to support iraq in the next years to come, and make it an example of democracy and stability(wishful thinking, but it has been managed before with japan, germany, kosovo etc.)

3) if this experimnet will work, it has a high chance - in my opinion - of stabilizing the middle east region; if the other countries will be affected by that, their people will have more freedom and more economical means than the current dictatorships allow them. (again, its an assumption, but again, being an israli, i believe that my country is a good enough example for this thesis, although we have no oil and been on an almost constant war for the last 100 or so years- our GNP totals more than that of ALL our neighbouring countries combined (with about 1/10 the population..), and the research generated is the highetst per capita in the world -- if its not enough an argument, compare the situation of syria to that of turkey)

4) when and if the region will be stabilized, the self interest of the SELF GOVERMENTED people if the islamic nations of the middle east will be to surpress terrorists groups, as they will have so much more to lose. (more than their lives, but also real freedom)

5) as for those of you who claim the value of iraqis civilian lives as a reason against the war, are actually claiming that living under the rule of a bloodthirsty tyrant (as has have been proven countless times) is actualy a reasonable price for iraqi people to pay.

Reply to this


 Re: my point of view

 by protoman on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

I do agree that most of middle east countries support terrorism, but I don't think changing Saddam to someone else will improve things.
A lot of Iraq people will have to leave the country because of the war. Always remember the people outside a country increases terrorism because of the feeling of being unable to live at their homes. You can probally say it's temporary, but you see the same was said about pelestians who left for other countries and Israel don't accept back.

And plus, just trying to make other's countries democracy isn't something magical. Democracy must be first wanted for the people. If people don't really want democracy it won't happen. Second you must learn how to live in a democracy accepting multiple opinions. I think creating a regim that can't crush a country people by force is already a great progress, democracy can come later.

Anyway, all said about Iraq can be said about Palestin. Why not we create a contry democratic there?

Reply to this


 Re: Re: my point of view

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

RIght u wanna some things to open your eyes.

Which most will dismiss as bullshit.


is just one report. Its blatent whats going on. Afghanistan was not touched till september 11 even tho it had one of the most oppresive regimes in power. WHy wasnt it ? no need to afghanistan had nothing to offer U.S. ONly when america gets attacked by al qaeida which operated from afghanistan was there an attack. Now to iraq.. why is it countries like iraq and middle eastern countries always being talked about why is it most of them have dictators in power ?

simple in most cases america put them in power. Saddam was brought to power with US blessing they for a while had a good flow with saddam only when saddam was shown to be a complete nutter and unwilling to give america control of its oil was he demonized..

Same thing they did to the shah of iran. He said he would set his own oil prices and not have them dictated to him and within 6 months he was out of power and a wanker dictator was in.

Why did september 11th happen ? why would there be such an organised terrorist group with such hatred for the us exist ? could it be because of the shit us has done in the past ?

What goes around comes around the world works like that.. Bush is cleaning up the mess They themselves made.
And hoping to get good control of the oil lok at iraqs position in the middle east.
DId u know iraqi oil reserves are the second largest after Saudia.

The weapons of mass destruction what makes me laugh about that is most of them are shit compared to what the west has.. I love the label of "Weapons of mass destruction" what bollox bombs over 20 yrs old given to Iraq by america to begin with, during iran iraq war.

Most of this is just bullshit.. If america was gonna wait for a Un resolution it wouldnt have its troops already ready. It costs a lot of money to mobilise the army.. The weels have already been set in motion, not long before we hear the war has started.

Now is this a bad thing ? no its not saddam needs to be gotten out of power dont get me wrong the wanker has to go. But will america just carpet bomb the fuck out of them like it started doing in afghanistan will have to be seen i certainly hope not and if he does he should be held accountable.. 6 thousand died in sep 11. How many will this kill ? how many innocents died in afghanistan does the end justify the means i strongly doubt it,

This shit will all end when all the crude oil runs out no doubt as supplies get less and less it will get worse and worse.

DOnt forget we are talking about crude oil, not petrol.

What do tanks run on ? what do commercial planes run on ? what do boats run on ? think about it without crude oil most of these will be redundant how much is spent on developing them ? how much money does america and western countries stand to lose ? here in the uk tax on petrol is rediculus. Yet per barrel they pay something like 9 dollars high points of 20 dollars they need crude oil incredibly cheap what makes america even worse is that it doesnt even need the crude oil for consumption no it has huge oil reserves too. instead it uses it to gain power, and resells it at rediculous prices how nice.

Who is the greater evil ?

All those that have bought into the hype do a little reserch into the middle east and look at the war of terror the west has been placing on the middle east from the past 100 yrs..
Its fucked up but unfirtunately crude oil has killed so many innocent civilians has done so much damage to the middle east its unbelievable its like a curse.

I hope after America goes in It doesnt get control of what it so badly wants if it doesnt ill just be sitting and laughing at them.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: my point

 by Chris308 on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

Thanks for your post! I really needed a good laugh today. It made me wonder, are you one of those confused indoctrinated school kids or one of those pacifists, that simply feels that there is no such thing as a justifiable war? In either case, I am thankful that in America your view point is in the extreme minority.

P.S. Stay well. One day you will mature up and become an adult.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Re: my point

 by protoman on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

Well, I can say that I'm thankfull I'm not a nazist merican, just apoor brazilian thank you.

Your words sound much like the ones from Hitler. You you take a look on history, I'll see how he started to save europe from comunists.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my point

 by tomerz on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

1)err.. hitler also tried to save europe from jews, blacks, eastern europeans, free thought, gypsies, homosexuals, crippled, retarted, democracies, and anyone else he didn't quite like.

2) the american faschit plot actually worked, eventually, when the former USSR citizenty realized they live in shit, and had a leader that actually took enough care to allow them to swim out of it (keep rowing! you're on the right track!)

3) nothing against brazilians, though.

Reply to this


 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

 by protoman on: Mar 15 2003
Score 50%

I kind of agree in part, but at same time US gave Brazil a ditatorial regim for 20 years with the escuse of fighting the comunism.

I don't want another ditatorial regim here with the escuse for fight agains terrorism, thank you.

This is a example. If US takes what they talk about defending freedom I support them, but they almost every time forget about freedom in favor over winning.

What's next? War agains Argentina because they didn't pay the IMF. (and because they have oil in patagonia).
No thanks.


 Re: my point of view

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

"2) by cutting of the chain of funds to some of the terrorist groups, and maintainig a stable, central arab country in good term with the its neighbours and the rest of the world, other countries in the area may follow suit; that is if the US and the international community will be able to support iraq in the next years to come, and make it an example of democracy and stability(wishful thinking, but it has been managed before with japan, germany, kosovo etc.)"

Wishful Thinking is indeed the point here.

None of your examples resembles Irak at all.

The cosovo, still being a part Serbia-montenegro is today the centre of slave trade and drug-trafficing in Europe. While it were serbs supressing ethnic albanians before the war it's now albanians supressing a serb minority, regularily attacking other minorities like roma and sinthi (gypsies).
Democracy? Not more than before.

Japan was a highly industrialized nation with a very educated population. The people and even most of the officials were very open-minded towards a modern society and dedicated to build one after the war.
Japans political system does not directly resemble a western style democracy anyway.

Germany is probably the worst example for successful "nation-building" since there was virtually nothing to do.
The germans and the us-americans have a common cultural background and value system, so there was no defiance from that side.
Germany had a democratic tradition from the pre-Hitler era. It was merely a restoration former conditions with full support from most of the population.

And Irak?
A modern, western society? No
A democratic Tradition to build upon? No
What do the US-Americans want in the region?
Stable, US-friendly states? Yes
Is a potential democracy in an arab country with a mostly US-hostile population likely to be a loyal, stable pro US regime? No
Would an autocracy with a pro-US dictator be? Sure
Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? any noteworthy democratic tendencies in these US satellite states? No
Has the US after WWII promoted any democratic tendencies in the 3rd world? No, contrariwise
Will, therefore, the US establish or allow a true democracy in a post war Irak? Questionable, at best

It is after all wishfull thinking...

Reply to this


 Re: Re: my point of view

 by tomerz on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

"That is if the US and the international community will be able to support iraq in the next years to come"
nobody said it will be easy..
(btw- i could emphazie russia as an example:
it _wasn't_ easy for them, but they are starting to get the hang of it)

but unfortunatly you may be right.
on the otherhand, claiming to take no action
on the notion that things are hard to do, is -as i believe - a very lazy at best(its not the word i want to use, don't remember the exact word- means being idle on the notion of "whats the use, bla bla bla??")

Reply to this


 my ongoing point

 by anonymous on: Mar 14 2003
Score 50%

as a sequent to my previous post..
(damn it get boring in the comp-lab..)
1) for all of you who claim that oil is a such a major US interest, do notice that democracies have a better chance to stand against who act against their self-interest;
the leaders of such countries have a public opinion that needs to be resolved more or less constanly, not only while wielding a kalachnikov (as our friendly arafat put it: a democracy of a forest of guns - when he refered to the democratization demanded by the international community - but i'm getting off topic)

2) for those who claims that setting a new tyrant to replace an old tyrant is a sufficient solution, i must answer that
a) making a tyrant smile on more frequent occassions, especially while waving an american flag, doesn't make him less a tyrant.. it is not enough to put sadam off power.
b) claiming that a less bloodthirsty tyrant is a good enough step for the iraqis is actualy an underestimation of the iraqis as people - they are actually human, under the mustaches and the unfortunate fact that they are arabs (for all of you hypocrits: its _sarcasm_)

3) for the guy who asked why they hate us so much (probably meaning the western world),
well, its combination of indoctrination, fanaticism, and the general mishap of the arab middle eastern countries- much of is the direct result of its citizenry living under ruthless tyrant for.. hm.. ever.
(again, compare the situation of turkey, a muslim, democratic country, to that of syria - a muslim, fachist country; and for all of you who claim otherwise- 98.736356% aye votes, when there is only one candidate, is quite amusing, but nothing else)

4) for those who shout at each other to be adult and get a life- damn its getting late in the comp-lab.

5) even if bush is satan incarnated, and the war is somesort of family heirloom, while saddam is the misunderstood child of great intent and futile cause, at least some arabs will get their balls bashed, and its good enough for me.

(_sarcasm_ remember?)

Reply to this



 by alois-kde on: Mar 15 2003
Score 50%

how about posting a option "the complete show is a nonsens, bush is just wanting the oil"? I think, this one would be the most realistic!

Never wars have been fought because of people, danger and the opponents armary. war were always used as a effective way of stealing property and resources of others, or just to make money out of it. but NEVER because of principials. If Iraq owns weapons of mass-destruction, or not, is not the question. In any way it is not a danger to the US, which is, due to its spionaging abilities and abc-weaponery, a much higher treath to the civilised world.

Reply to this

goto page: prev   1  2  3  4  5  6 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack

How do you like Plasma 5?
 The best KDE Desktop ever.
 Definitely a nice improvement.
 Not decided yet. Haven't tried it yet.
 I do not like some of the changes.
 KDE is taking the wrong way.
 I am still sticking with KDE 3.5.
 I have no opinion, but wanted to vote anyway.

 Who we are
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Content RSS   
Events RSS   

Add App
Public API
About KDE-Apps.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Sponsor us
Report Abuse

Copyright 2003-2016 KDE-Apps.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Apps.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.