No war can justify the loss of innocent lives..... but the funny thing about this war is that when saddam was in power the iraqis were calling for help... every country they go to they have demonstrations about how awful saddam is. The U.S. stepped in and removed saddam and all his government even his sons are dead, I thought that when the iraqis experience the freedom they were crying for before the war they would treat the US soldiers well, wether it was Bush is a murderer or not (which i dont think he is), from my point iraqis are not loyal!!!! these rebels used to be tortured under saddam's rule and now that they are free they go around killing the innocent in the most crul way possible. THE ONLY MISTAKE BUSH HAS DONE IS REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER
Originally posted by ivanhoeKerry will never recognize ICJ jurisdiction over any case to which the U.S. is a party. About the I.C.C., who knows? Both of the following quotes are from Kerry:
Do you know what Kerry's stance is on recognising the Court's jurisdiction ? I don't think he has any intentions at all to do so.
I would never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.
And
The Bush administration needlessly alienated our friends and allies by its ham-handed approach to the issue of the International Criminal Court. My administration will carefully consider the full range of U.S. interests at stake with respect to the court as we review our policy and fashion a more constructive approach..
He's just another politician.
Originally posted by paba002Well said, Paba...
No war can justify the loss of innocent lives..... but the funny thing about this war is that when saddam was in power the iraqis were calling for help... every country they go to they have demonstrations about how awful saddam is. The U.S. stepped in and removed saddam and all his government even his sons are dead, I thought that when the iraqis experience ...[text shortened]... ocent in the most crul way possible. THE ONLY MISTAKE BUSH HAS DONE IS REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER
Originally posted by chancremechanicProbably? Why don't you take a look for yourself? Here it is as reported in Al Jazeera. Looks to me like a straight account of a tragedy. Where is the bias? What would the US press say differently?
I'll tell you how it was played on Al-jasleeza: They probably portrayed the Americans as luring the children into an area where a planned attack on insurgents was to take place, so as to make it look look as if the Americans are to blame for the childrens' deaths...
Al Jazeera is the most free, open and unbiased news source in the Middle East. It is an enormous step away from the controlled news of the Baathists and the fundamentalists.
I don't believe you have ever been to the site
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5007
Under the heading :
Explosions rock Baghdad, 35 children killed
9/30/2004 9:24:00 AM GMT
At least 35 children and seven adults were killed and about 120 injured, in a series of three car bomb explosions in Baghdad on Thursday, hospital officials said.
At least two bombs exploded near a U.S. military convoy in southern Baghdad, killing at least 33 people, while another blast killed two Iraqi soldiers and a U.S. marine west of the capital.
Iraqi sources reported that there have been at least two coordinated explosions in southern Baghdad, the first probably caused by a car bomb and the second followed it almost immediately while U.S. forces were at the scene of the first blast.
A police officer said that he had counted at least 33 corpses and that many others - probably around 50 - had been injured in the blasts.
Officials at Yarmouk hospital also said they received at least 35 corpses, adding that up to 120 people were injured, most of them children hit by shrapnel.
Witnesses said that a ceremony to open a new sewage plant was taking place when the blasts occurred.
It is still not clear if the victims were Iraqi civilians or U.S. forces. A U.S. military spokesman said that he was waiting for more details but confirmed that U.S. soldiers were hit in the attacks.
Originally posted by steerpikeMedia academics argue that there is no such thing as genuinely unbiased news reporting - all news stories are inevitably coloured by the experiences and beliefs of reporters, however hard they try to avoid it. But news reporting can give the impression of being unbiased if it reflects the middle ground of its target audience, which is what most media outlets try to do - at least those with the freedom to do so. So Al Jazeera's most obvious display of bias - its regular criticism of Israel - almost certainly accurately refects the opinions of many millions of muslems, which makes it a pretty useful place to visit when trying to understand the mess that is the middle east.
Probably? Why don't you take a look for yourself? Here it is as reported in Al Jazeera. Looks to me like a straight account of a tragedy. Where is the bias? What would the US press say differently?
Al Jazeera is the most free, open an ...[text shortened]... etails but confirmed that U.S. soldiers were hit in the attacks.
Rich.
To ask whether the world is a better place at this moment is asking the same question short after D-Day in 1944. We'll just have to wait and see and then we can aswer this question with any certainty. Answering the question in the positive or the negative at this moment is merely speculating on the outcome of events. Iraq is just one battlefield in the War on Terror. There are others: Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Tchechnia/Russia, the Phillipines, Sudan, Indonesia and maybe there will be others. There are also less visible battlefields such as the world of diplomatic action, the secret services, the battle to cut off the financial resources the Islamists are using and last but not least the battle in the media, among which the battle on the television screen is a major one, being able to influence the outcome of for instance the battle taking place in Iraq. We must not forget the role journalists are playing in this War on Terror. They are constantly down playing their roles, but let's face it. They can make and break politicians and other participants in this war on either side of the political spectrum and on either side of the War on Terror.
Originally posted by paba002What about Sudan? Or in China and North Korea where people are starving and fighting their way into western embassies? What about these nations which are known to be human rights violators and have conditions far worse than the conditions of Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Why hasn't the United States and their mighty coalition of the willing gone in there and flexed their muscles and set those countries straight. I have a hard time believing that the war in Iraq was for the sole benefit of the Iraqi people. It was a war based on the bottom line. A lot of money is to be made from winning a war in Iraq - so let's do it! The thought of nobility in a politician's decision to go to war is a great thought but unfortunately, it's not very realistic or believable.
No war can justify the loss of innocent lives..... but the funny thing about this war is that when saddam was in power the iraqis were calling for help... every country they go to they have demonstrations about how awful saddam is. The U.S. stepped in and removed saddam and all his government even his sons are dead, I thought that when the iraqis experience ...[text shortened]... ocent in the most crul way possible. THE ONLY MISTAKE BUSH HAS DONE IS REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt seems a little spurious to compare the D-Day landings to the invasion of Iraq.
To ask whether the world is a better place at this moment is asking the same question short after D-Day in 1944. We'll just have to wait and see and then we can aswer this question with any certainty. Answering the question in the positive or the negative at this moment is merely speculating on the outcome of events. Iraq is just one battlefield in the W ...[text shortened]... n this war on either side of the political spectrum and on either side of the War on Terror.
Originally posted by bbarrI.C.C - Internet Chess Club?
The I.C.J. only has jurisdiction over cases to which the U.S. is a party when the U.S. explicitly gives its consent. Since the U.S. will never consent to be tried as to the legality of the war in Iraq, the I.C.J. will never have the jurisdiction necessary to declaim concerning the war's legality. So, it will be impossible for the Iraq war to be officially d ...[text shortened]... ave jurisdiction without explicit consent, just as the U.S. should become a party to the I.C.C.
tssk tssk.
🙂
Originally posted by Acolyte
In these cases, which side are 'the good guys'? These people aren't fighting an emotion, they're fighting each other as a result of being possessed by it.
The "good guys" are those whithin both groups, or all groups involved, who oppose the use of terrorism, meaning spreading fear by randomly hitting and killing innocent people for political reasons.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's not what terrorism means!
... terrorism, meaning spreading fear by randomly hitting and killing innocent people for political reasons.
Here's a definition from dictionary.com...
'the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear'
I'll leave it to yourselves to decide who the worst terrorists (as per definition) are.
D
If all the people Sadam killed were added up. Would it really be more than those the US killed in Gulf war 1 and 2?
Gulf-1 had significant carpet bombing to soften up the enemy. The collateral damage had to be devastating. The Bushes may have killed more Iraqi's than Sadam. I don't think there is a way to know how many civilians were killed in the first gulf war, or even the second, but I would be curious as to the totals.