War on Iraq, Review

[Ninja-Scientist]

Hello, I started writing a review for "BentTV News: War on Iraq" located here http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=93646 but it wound up being so long that I couldn't post it and decided to cut and paste it here. It's actually too long for BBS too so I'm going to have to post it in seperate posts. >_<' Sorry. But it has a lot of information on the War with Iraq, if anyone is interested. Thank you! ^_^
______________________________________________________________
Note: I'm sorry about the length of this. I'm mostly doing this because I think that people would react to movies like this better if they understood more about the information surrounding our war with Iraq. Of course, no one has to read it if they don't want to. But please don't rank my review badly just because you can't finish it. If you actually are interested in this, however, please check out the review I did for "Dead Dude" (in my profile). I have more information about American nationalistic propaganda there. Also, I appologize if my information isn't well organized. This thing is pretty long, and I'm not so obssessed about it that I'd take a few days to make sure it's in MLA format. lol. ^_^ So, please understand if there are some mistakes or if some of my information sounds funny where I placed it. Also note that I am not angry in this review (although I may be being sarcastic sometimes: I hope people can tell when that is), and if it seems that way or if I sound offensive to some people, I'm truly sorry. I assure you that wasn't my intent. Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________
Cut and Paste Review:

My God! This has to have been the best thing I have ever seen! I can't stand how the American media is trying to portray us as rescuing the people from Iraq when our country has been killing their people with disease and screwing with them for years. A year ago in my high school senior class, one kid said that she didn't understand how Iraq could hate America because, "Doesn't America go over and help all these countries and stuff?" The most alarming thing about this is that this was an 18 year old! Our media keeps us SO ignorant about the issues that surround these wars and national disputes. They always try to portray us as the "good guys," because that's "good nationalistic publicity." They turn a greedy war into a "saving of the people of Iraq." And they never EVER talk about any of the crap we have done to the people of Iraq!

This may come as a shock to many of you, but Iraq didn't decide to hate us for no reason. For one example, not too many years ago, America took over Iraq's clean water supply and refused to give all the people there clean water. It was a supposed attempt to get at Sudam Hussain, who doesn't even drink the city's water. Brilliant. -_-' Of course this caused widspread disease in Iraq which wound up affected the children the most. And of course this didn't exactly hurt Sudam. SO many children were dying from America's hand while Sudam was sitting on his throne drinking his clean imported water (this is all a fact) and was it ever shown on American news? You can say this is bad about Sudam, but he wasn't the one killing them, we were. And then later we were calling Sudam evil for not saving his people from death and disease......from US! How dare he not save his people from us?
What about a few years ago when WE traded weapons of mass desctruction to Iraq for oil (another fact)? Was that shown on American news? What about a few years after we gave them the weapons, when we suddenly became angry at them for having the some of the exact weapons we traded to them?

What about George Bush Sr. who earlier supported the EXACT terrorists who became the Taliban which attacked America (this is also a fact)? Why has no one talked about that on our news? In fact, the recent Harper's Magazine published an article about a man who's father was killed in 9/11. He went on Bill Orealy (I'm not sure how to spell his name, but you can check out the recend edition of Harpers for this information) to talk about how Bush Sr. earlier financially supported these terrorist who later killed his father and they kicked him off and didn't even air it because it wasn't "good publicity" (another fact). And some say there is a fair amount of propoganda on both sides? I'd like you to watch the TV and tell me the next time you see an Anti-War commercial or a commercial that isn't full with heavy nationalistic propaganda. Or tell me the next time they kick someone off a show for being too nationalistic.

And what about Korea (and a multiple of other countries) who has had nuclear weapons for years, and we actually KNOW they have them and we actually KNOW the've been threatening to bomb us, and who actually IS capable of doing it? Why doesn't Bush do something about that? Well, the only difference between Korea and Iraq (and the other countries that Bush has attacked) is that Korea is the only one that doesn't have oil. Go figure.

[Ninja-Scientist]

(continuation from last post)

Of course once we take oil from Iraq and "dump it on the market" gas prices will go down, oil companies can afford to be competitive once again, unless they form a high-price pact with eachother, (anyone who knows anything about Econ can tell you this), then they will be able to sell more oil, and then....get more money (that's how it helps the oil industry). Once they have more oil to sell, they actually sell more oil (amazing isn't it), and they can then afford to keep such gas guzzling cars (such as SUVs) on the market and in people's interest. It's funny how one of you was being sarcastic about this since it's true. Now let's see, would you buy oil NOW from company number one, who sells gas for $1.69 a gallon or from company two, who sells gas for $1.67 a gallon? Will you drive all the way to company two to save two cents or not bother? Probably not bother, since it would take you about that much in gas just to get there, so company one and two get about 50-50 of the people who need gas and make about the same amount of money. Now, after the war with Iraq there is more oil and prices can afford to go down. Will you buy gas from company two who charges $1.59 a gallon or from company two, who sells gas for $1.05 a gallon? Would you bother to drive to company two this time? Probably, yes. So company two gets about 80% of people this time and, guess what, makes more money than company one and more money than they did before the war. This is a "good thing" for company two, so, guess what, company two will probably do it. Therefore, competition is actually good for competing oil industries. Without competition, company two would be actually losing a little cash. Now, for those of you who don't understand, please read this over a couple of times. Good thing this worthless war is only costing us 20-40 billion dollars...and yes, I am being sarcastic.

Anyway, I also love how you showed Michael Jackson on there. I remember how the American news stations were all talking about how worried they were about Michael Jackson molesting American children when at the exact same time they were talking about the plans for a war with Iraq which would cause the DEATHS of hundreds of Iraqi children. So many Iraqi children's hospitals are being hit so hard by the war with America right now and Iraq doesn't have good medical facilities to begin with. And now the kids (and other inoccent people) are dropping like flies. Why isn't this being broadcasted either? And you can say that after we take over Iraq, we can change all this, but who ever thinks this knows nothing about American history.

Just as in the past with EVERY single country America has gotten control of, things have NEVER gotten better for the people once we've gotten control of them. The only thing America has done (in North Korea and Vietnam for example) is put in some puppet government figure who will make trade with America better for America's financial benifit. Then we leave the poeple to their own fate. In fact, in many cases things have actually gotten worse in the country after this has happened. And for those of you who are interested, according to Harpers again (I'm not sure what edition), America is just now planning the puppet to put in Iraq once it's taken over. And guess who it is? Some average guy who has promised to trade a lot of oil with America once he controls Iraq. That is is only "qualification" for running the country. Of course, he has promised nothing for the Iraqi people. So if you really want to save the Iraqi people, save them from those who are killing them. And if you really want to support our troops, support them by sending them home and not forcing them to be shot at in some other country (makes sense to me).

In addition, people say that if you say anything bad about America than you are Anti-American or you "don't love your country." But that's not true. I really do love my country and THAT'S why it hurts me so much to see it's faults. Loving your country doesn't mean denying that there are any faults with your country or pretending that your country is "perfect." Loving your country is actually RECOGNIZING the faults in your country and then DOING SOMETHING TO FIX THEM! Even just by making a little Flash film like this or doing anything to get your voice out helps your country. You are helping more to be actually playing in the game than to be just cheering ignorantly on the sidelines. But helping your country actually means having to find faults to help with (and anyone that thinks that America is "perfect" IS a media-driven sheep--and I do not call people sheep if they believe certain things, but I call people sheep when they believe only the things they are told by often unreliable, uneducated, extremist, or ratings-driven sources). Some people spend their entire lives trying to make the America population aware of it's countries problems so that people can start doing something to fix it. But then so many people label many of these well-read people as "long haired hippies" (and note: I think it's a little hipocrytical of you to complain about some people generalizing people when you did it yourself. No offense). Many people get angry at these individuals for trying to help their country by getting information out. "We support America and the freedom of speech, which it symbolizes, as long as no one uses it if we disagree with them?" I do not sympathize with terrorists, but that's also why I don't sympathize with many of these sudden American values that involve us killing people for oil, and then playing the "we're helping people again, just like we said we were doing in Vietnam and Korea" card.

(continued in my next post)

[Ninja-Scientist]

(continuation from my last post)

Secondly, although I belive in capitalism, I think it is a sad day in America history when we actually hand the "throne" of our country over to the companies themselves. Especially the oil company (Bush). What I don't understand, is that it is considered unlawful of a political figure to take money from American companies and then run the country in that company's favor (like, make certain acts for them lawful; like taking a brib to make drilling in Alaska legal, etc), and yet we let someone who actually makes money from the company itself run the country in that company's favor (he doesn't need to take bribs because he owns the company himself, what's good for oil is already good for him). And of course he has tried to "easily tap Alaska's....ass" but he tried it right after he was elected (when most people still hated him) and Congress turned him down. Then he tried to drill in the Rocky Mountains, but was turned down by Congress again because Native Americans own that land. Then he tried Iraq following the 9/11 incident which has made everyone so gung hoe nationalistic all of a sudden, and of course he got his way.

If you are angry about gas prices, then maybe you should talk to Bush himself. Of course, while he's making good money off of it, not much will probably change. Now, saying that drilling in the beautiful Alaskan wilderness (which harbers many endangered species and which we will never be able to get back) is a cheap price to pay to haul your selfish ass to work in some SUV, is very ignorant. (Hate to sound like a "long haired hippy," but if you scoff at something like this just to defend your "Pro-American" beliefs then you have no concience, because all that's true. Alaska surprisingly is not an ass, it's a country, but nice play on words though). Mainly, it is very limited thinking. Now let's see, oil is causing problems, and we need more of it. One person told me that "if we didn't drill in Alaska, then will where the oil come from?" And this was an adult, mind you, though not a very bright one I might add. A person with a limited sense of thinking would think this problem out in simple terms. We need oil, oil is rare, oil causes problems, oil is expensive, but we have other means of fuel.....uh....we get oil from Alaska, we done. However, it is not so simple. Firstly, studies have already shown that it is a myth that Alaska has that much oil to begin with. Actually, there isn't that much. If we drill ALL of Alaska, we may only be able to clear 3-4 years with a good oil supply.....And of course, we'd lose the country. However, a person with a more advanced sense of thinking would find this entire situation stupid. We need oil, oil is rare, it causes problems, and it is expensive, but we have other means of fuel.....so just maybe we should start getting into that shouldn't we. Now, saying that the government should start forcing car companies to provide hybrids may sound "crazy," especially since the poor car companies and Bush won't be making as much money (and I know how much that hurts us), but why is it? During the "Arms Race," we took underdeveloped technology and sent a person to the moon, yet you're saying that we can't take technology that we already have and....use it more? Just because some rich guys won't be getting as much money? Well, why can't we use hybrids? It may sound silly to you (though I don't know why), but put aside what you think are "Pro-American" beliefs and actually ask yourself, why not? The government has already supplied many of the manufactors of SUVs with "loopholes" that allow them not to pay tax on their cars, which leaves all of America with a 1.1 billion dollar tax dept while the car companies get to keep this 1.1 billion dollars themselves (but of course, us paying the bill and the companies staying rich, "profits all," as someone said), and we are going to thank them by allowing them to drill oil from our wilderness and keep on selling the overpriced stuff to us to get rich? (Note: if you want more information about this, including the actual-factual bribs/benifits Congress got to pass laws that favor these car companies, then please e-mail me so I can send you some links with the information, because I'm not allowed to put links to other sites in my reviews).

If you want to support our country, do it by not supporting those who are putting our sons and daughters through hell in some war while they go sit on thier butts, who are actually putting our country and it's people in a 1.1 billion tax dept (maybe more), who are making our country so dependent on other countries, and who, because of all of this, are the Anti-American ones themselves. If you really care about your country, you wouldn't want to destroy it's land, put it's people in dept for your own benefit, and make our country dependent on other countries who hate us.....That goes to you, Bush.

(continued in my next post)

[Ninja-Scientist]

(continuation from my last post)

Of course, if Bush really cared, he would actually be protecting us from terrorism and not making it worse. Let's think really hard about how we were attacked anyway. Our national defense sucks. Our national offense is great. That means that we can't defend our own land cause our defensive borders suck, but we can attack other people's land really well, cause we have a lot of bombs. This may come as a surprise, but while we're attacking Iraq, some other country or group (say the Taliban) can still come and attack us. Bush has done very little to actually build our national defense. All he promises is that, "Well, after someone attacks us, then we'll go bomb their country after they do it....as long as they have oil, try to find them, but probably fail....and that's all." Or "Well, just go bomb some other country and let all the other countries and groups who hate us, like Korea and the Taliban, decide which way they can attack us best, since our defense still sucks and all."

I am aware that the Federal Government pays very little towards
Education (I can see this especially from some of these reviews. lol) and Health Care and pays more towards National "Defense" (or offense, I should say) but um.....isn't that a problem? They don't do it, so let's just not talk about it anymore? Shouldn't the people of our country try to, I don't know, fix that or something?

On an ending note: I respect anyone who has different beliefs than mine, but if you choose to flame me for mine, please be kind enough to e-mail me about the issue or post something on BBS. If you wish to flame me in another review, please be aware than I won't respond to any of your criticism, since I can only review a movie once. If you are interested in some of the information I've given, then I'll be glad to send you a list of the sources. A few of my sources are a little old, and I may not be able to get them for you, since I can't remember the book or magazine titles. @_o' Thank you! ^_^
_______________________________________________________________
Bush Quote for Thomas: (A tour group in Texas accidently overheard Bush signing some waivers for the death penalty to be imposed on certain people. This information was then published, but apparently not read by the public). "So, there are no White people or women on these things?" "Good, the last time I put a woman to death, I got hell from the public." (He then promply signed the papers). This is my favorite quote since it's the scariest. Have fun. ^_^

(Well, that's all. Again, I'm sorry for the length.)

[DarkCyrstal]

At 4/20/03 04:22 PM, lm_mario wrote: Well I will give you credit for being able to rattle off 3 pages of content. I am away on Easter break. Once I return I will reply to this largly liberal, misinformation filled post. (IE. your only source example is that of Harpers a liberal extremest magazine.)

No, that is not true. I have found another source of that article. The only problem is that the article next to it was "Bat boy get's married to J Lo"

[Ninja-Scientist]

Are you being sarcastic or stupid? @_o''....or both. Anyway, because Harpers lists many stories that may not favor highly Republican views, does not make it a "liberal extremest" magazine. Sheesh! I can see why your friends call you Adolf! I suppose anything liberal must seem extreme to you. lol. ^_^

Liberal Extremest is like Green Party members or close to Anarchy. These are both very small groups. How do you suppose Harpers sells so well or wins so many awards, if they only sell to extremest groups?

In fact, Harpers lists mostly factual stories. Even if some stories may have liberal edges, they are facts. The same goes for my posts. Let me guess, even if something's true, just because it's "liberal" or conflicts with my beliefs, I'm going to pretend like I never heard it or that it's all lies. la la la la la. Well, grow up! I've been accustomed to this while dealing with people similar to you.

If someone shares a particular belief of yours, or disagrees with it, you automatically label them as "us" vs. "them." Well, guess what, just because someone may be against this particular war or even against particular president doesn't automatically make them liberal or even Democratic. And just because you may be Republican or something, doesn' t mean you have to like "everything Republican" (including this war and Bush). If that was so, then Democracy couldn't even work.

And here's another thing you may not know. There is no "us" vs. "them." Not everything you believe in is "good" and "right" and not everything "they" believe in is "evil" and "wrong."
For example, I was favoring the American tax payer and angry that the SUV companies (which are proded by OPEC) are causing a 1.1 billion dollar tax dept (here's a link, since I know how picky you are: http://www.suv.org/economic.html---sources for the information given on this site are listed below, many of which are unbiased sources). For all you know, I could be Republican. Am I liberal because it makes me upset that America traded weapons to Iraq a few years ago in return for better oil trade? Am I liberal because I'm upset that children died due to America's purposeful water contamination? Anyone can be upset by these things.

All in all, it shouldn't matter if there is a liberal twist in my posts if the information I've given is factual (which I assure you it is). You are a child if you will not listen to something just because it does not come from someone who is "just like you." If you really want my sources, I've listed them in another review (it is basically the same post, but I had to do it twice, because I felt people wouldn't view the first one, thinking it was just a review). It's also in the Politics section, see "Info on War Media has kept from us."

Thank you very much. I'm looking very forward to hearing from you. ^_-

[Raptorman]

Goddamnit girl keep it pithy! You try to excuse your verbosity by saying "I think people would respond better if they only understood....."

Get over it. Many of us have read, seen, done a lot more then you. Drop the foolish arrogance. Do you really expect someone to make a 5 page point-by-point response to this?

We can be paitient with you because you seem to be intelligent and have something to say. We can also indulge you since you seem to be a non-native english speaker but for fucks sake learn how to present yourself.

[Ninja-Scientist]

In response to Raptorman here: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=64071

Firstly, I am a native English speaker. My Dad's an English teacher, in fact. If I've been making too many type o's or something, I'm sorry. I myself realized that I was (if you think that's bad, you should have seen the 200 type o's I caught @_o'). But you must realize that I had to keep writing 19 posts in a row last night until about 1 in the morning (right after an Easter party to boot). @_o'

So, I was getting exausted, and tired of all these people focusing simply on my word usage, format, voice, and now....because I sound liberal? That's why I'm starting to get irritated. Not a single person has targeted my actual points! One of the only people who did, didn't even make any sense (like we're giving oil fields to Europe in the middle of an oil crisis, or something). And the second person didn't even give me a reason why. He just said "You're liberal and misinformed.....uh.....I'll tell you why later, bye." Simple as that.

Secondly, when the first words out of someone's mouth goes, 'this is liberal....and (therefore) misinformed. Plus, you got your information from a liberal magazine!" (Implying that this is some point that is supposed to make my facts wrong?), I don't bother to take them seriously. I think it's very offensive for someone to automatically assume that I'm wrong or lying just because I come from a different political party than he does.

I originally wrote this review mostly to make people understand some of the things that went on between Iraq and the US way before this war. I didn't even expect anyone to really respond to it (except about the oil issue). But in contrast, I got many people responding to it, but not a single one of them made a counter argument to my points, (except one about oil)! They're just talking about "you use too many words" or "you said sheep" or "this isn't in good format, you need to break up your sentences more," or they just give me wolf metaphor quotes.

Don't believe me? Here's a summery of my responses:

DarkCrystals: Didn't read it, says it was too long.

FUNKbrs: Calls people sheep. Talks about voting. Says no one will agree with me because I agree with HIPPIES! @_o'

Raptorman: Targets how it is wrong of us to call people sheep.

Jiperly: Gave me links. Thank you! ^_^

Judge_Dredd: Gave wolf metaphors and talked about how everything in the world is "hippy."

Raptorman: Again says how he dislikes people calling people sheep and then lists his reasons.

FUNKbrs: Talks about how he's an anarchist.

Raptorman: Talks about how my style's wrong. Tells me to use paragraphs and more links.

karasz: Asks me what I'd watch for news.

Raptorman: Again talks about how I shouldn't use the word "sheep" and gives me more reasons why.

Kwas71KCK: Talks about how the media is censored because of Vietnam.

Nemesisz: Decides to give an intelligence test.

karasz: Asks who answered "yes" to both answers on the intelligence test.

karasz: Says my paragraphs aren't broken up enough.

karasz: Says I talked to much about Fox.

Frost Spider: Finally, contradicts my original posts by saying that the "oil thing" isn't true.

karasz: Asks if I really needed "all 16 lines" about Fox.

Judge_DREDD: Talks about where his wolf metaphor came from.

I'm_mario: Says I'm liberal and (therefore) misinformed. But then says that he'll tell me why later.

DarkCrystal: (who I guess calls himself Ady from Adolf @_o'). Makes a Joke......I didn't know Hitler had a sense of humor.

Raptorman: Says I'm arrogant for responding angrily to I'm_mario and DarkCrystal. Then accuses me of not being a native English speaker.

The Shrike: Complements me for my efforts. Thank you! ^_^

NEMESiSZ: Tells karasz that he made a typeo and that he is an ass.

That's all. Someone please respond to my actual post!

Anyway, I know my essay is not in good format and uses too many words, etc. But who cares! This is a BBS. All it is is a list of facts I've gathered on the war, followed with a little of my opinions on these facts or a counter argument to the review of another person (from the movie that this was supposed to be a review for). It was never supposed to be an essay! If I had known that I had to be so formal on a BBS, I assure you I would have done it, but please remember that this was originally a review for a movie partly directed towards the reviews of others who didn't understand what it was about. I wrote this to give them more information about the facts behind the war to show where the animator of the film was coming from in his beliefs. I wrote that at the beginning of my view, so that people wouldn't focus on my opinions over the other points I wrote. However, I can see no one even bothered to visit the review page, and may not even have read the beginning of my posts. -_-'

So, in conclusion, I didn't plan on being formal because that has nothing to do with the points behind my essay. A fact is still a fact whether it's written in MLA format or not, whether it is liberal sounding or not, whether it is broken up into paragraphs or not, whether it is followed by a good metaphor (or even an insult, if you feel that way) or not, etc. See what I'm saying? -_-'

However, I've done this to myself. I should never have bothered to respond to what those people were saying if they didn't even bother to respond to what I was saying.

Frankly, I believe that most of these people have just run out of anything good to say about what I've listed, and so they just target things like my sentence structure or word choice.

So! From now on I'm only going to respond to something that actually has to do with what I wrote in my review. That goes to all of you! Thank you! ^_^ (Hopefully, this last "liberals are misinformed" guy will give me something as he's promised. @_o').

[Raptorman]

Run for your lives, it's the assault of the windbags!

I give up.

[TheShrike]

At 4/21/03 05:59 PM, Raptorman wrote: Run for your lives, it's the assault of the windbags!

I give up.

Ditto.

Not that your posts are bad, but no-one wants to spend more than 5 minutes playing catch-up in a thread.

Why not keep your posts a little shorter, and use the bigger points as necessary?

[NJDeadzone]

you really think i'm gonna read all this? you're out of your fucking minds!!! (Yes, i finally used the f-word)

get to the point already!

[FUNKbrs]

confuscious say, "the longer a statement is, the more likely it is pile of ox crap"

[Commander-K25]

Are we writing a novel here?

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 4/22/03 12:57 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Are we writing a novel here?

More like *attempting*, Commander.

[Ninja-Scientist]

Note: Sorry it took me so long to respond (I had school). I also appologize for the messiness of this. And if there are any mistakes or if I repeat myself sometimes, I'm sorry. You must realize that I had to gather almost all my sources and type this whole thing out in a few days. I also listed some links for those of you who are interested. Thank you! ^_^

[Ninja-Scientist]

First off, you are contradicting yourself. You say we should not call you names yet you through names in my direction.
___________________________________________________________
You think calling someone a child for assuming that liberal views and liberal magazines are all "misinformed" because they aren't "his views" the same as telling someone that they "have their head stuck 'somewhere.?" Although it may seem unfair and shocking to you, if you plan on resorting to childish name calling, such as this, yourself, be prepared to get some degree of insulting back. If you are going to critize the beliefs of other, be prepared to play that way, Joe.
_____________________________________________________________
Check out “Harpers” could be a liberal magazine. I did and it is very liberal.
__________________________________________________________
Firstly, I find it highly unlikely that you actually went somewhere to check out a "Harpers" magazine just to prove someone on a BBS wrong. Also, you have a pecular view of what is actually "very liberal," so I am not worried about what you think there.

You called it "extremest," firstly. I am aware that Harpers is liberal. But that does not matter in the cases in which I used it as a reference. If I had quoted the opinions of a Harpers magazine, then you would be fully in the right to doubt my statements. However, this is not the case. When I quoted Harpers, I made sure only to use the historical facts they were commenting on and not the comments themselves. And, contrary to what you may believe, just because Harpers is liberal, that doesn't mean that they can or do lie about facts. If all a magazine did was comment on "made up" issues then I doubt it would last for long, or win so many Honor's and Awards for lies: http://www.harpers.org/about_harpers/honors_awards.php3
__________________________________________________________
The use of Nationalist media is wrong.
I don’t know were she has her head stuck but it must be some place without access to the news. I have seen our journalist report fairly both sides. I have seen the injured civilians and heard the reports of what we did during the Gulf War. Her un-backed name calling only weakens her argument.
_________________________________________________
Firstly, what name-calling are you talking about? Are you refering to the first posts I made or the second one? If it is the second one, then I already explained myself there, and that doesn't matter anyway because it has nothing to do with my first posts, but more with your accusal of my "liberal" information as being wrong simply because of the fact.

And, I am not putting words in your mouth there. I never wrote anything about liberal or republican beliefs in my original posts, and yet the first thing out of your mouth was about me being liberal and misinformed and "liberal this and liberal that." Those first two emphasized words obviously must have gone together for you. If not, explain to me why you would even write that my post was liberal if it's not important fact to you? "I'll respond to your very liberal and misinformed post..." You just decided to mention that my post was liberal (and misinformed) " Just in case no one else knows it's liberal? Just because? Just cause you like the look of the word "liberal?" Why else would you mention it if you weren't trying to imply some derogatory meaning behind it which is backed up by the following adjective, "misinformed." And why did you mention that "You got your information from Harpers Magazine, which is very liberal.".....Is that a point you are trying to make? If not, then why did you write it? Just for fun? Please! I'm not stupid Anyone can see what you were driving at. Could it possibly be that you were implying that in both cases that being liberal is the cause for me being "misinformed" and that Harper's magazine is not a worthy source of information simply because it is liberal? Please don't try to play games with me. I have read your other reviews enough to know that you spat on liberal beliefs. Otherwise you would never accuse me of the things you had (such as "I must be trying to make America sound Impericalistic," because that sounds so democratic, etc.).

[Ninja-Scientist]

But I digress. Our media has indeed become very nationalistic and biased about this war. September 11, is one of the incidents that propelled this. American media has been nationalistic in every war she has been in (pick up any high school history book for this information--Red Scare, Victory Gardens, etc). The only difference was at the end of Vietnam. Towards the beginning, we were all afraid of "commies" and all too happy to go to war. But after the first news cameras came onto Vietnam land, the media backfired. People saw the destruction that was going on and support for Vietnam quickly faded.

However, in this war, the camera has become the media's friend. Whenever someone comments how there are liberal messages on tv news stations, they always only reference the showing of Iraqi civilians being harmed. But how often has that been shown recently? They rarely ever show the Iraqi people themselves. Just buildings being bombed. Or if they do show people being injured, they commonly show "America to the rescue" or "America helping the tragity" or "America in regret." For example, Fox showed the burial grounds of Iraqi people who lost their lives to the war with America. Is this liberal? No! Because then right afterwards they showed the American soldiers soluting the site and then they began spouting how, "the America soldiers build this barial ground" and "they're so good for that, just look how they solute and respect these dead soldiers. See, they don't want to kill, the American's were just protecting themselves....against terrorism" This, naturally is pro war. It portrays the American soldiers as "the resonable good guys." And yet, when are troops are captured or hurt, nothing is ever said about the Iraq people having to do it to "protect themselves." Then they call it a "suprise terrorist attack on US troops." When we release Iraq soldiers, it's "good job us, we're so nice," and yet when American soldiers are released (which has been shown quite recently), rarely is anything said positive about the Iraqi groups who released them.

The camera has become a way for emotional propoganda to be spewed to us. Fox contantly shows, "reuniting families," families talking about the death of a loved one due to the war and about how "brave this person was for giving his life for America, support the troops, remember him by supporting America, too, etc." and once showed a wife "talking to her husband in Iraq, about how she misses him, etc." This isn't news! And this isn't liberal! This is milking nationalistic pride and pity from American viewers so that they will tune in and increase ratings.

Here is a list of the all the latest war-related headlines on the Fox News Channel: http://www.foxnews.com/

Monday, April 21, 2003
No. 18 on Most-Wanted List Arrested in Iraq

DOHA, Qatar — Muhammad Hamza al-Zubaydi, who played a key role in the brutal suppression of the Shiite Muslim uprising of 1991, was arrested Monday in Iraq, the U.S. Central Command said....(continued)

(Go American troops! Yay, you got that evil evil guy! You're so good. Pro war).

Monday, April 21, 2003
Gen. Garner Arrives in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Retired U.S. Lt. Gen. Jay Garner arrived in Baghdad Monday for his first postwar visit as U.S. forces and Iraqi police kept the peace in a city still largely without power, clean water or a clear political direction.

(Basically talks about how we're all getting along and the war is good and peaceful. It talks about this good American, Garner, is going to help reconstruct this village--go him---and about how a bad Iraqi exile, Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi, is threatening to "put on trial anyone whose hands are stained with the blood of the Iraqi people," and how no one likes him--bad him).

Good Guy Quote: "What better day in your life can you have than to be able to help somebody else, to help other people, and that is what we intend to do," Garner (American guy) said upon arrival. Once again with the ("America helping the tragity" image).

Bad Guy Quote: Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi (Iraqi guy), a recently returned Iraqi exile, had promised to put on trial anyone whose "hands are stained with the blood of the Iraqi people" under a new constitution based on Islamic law (they of course use the most violent quote they could find, depicting him as a "vengence seeking man" and not a "helping other people" one as they did with the main American character).

Monday, April 21, 2003
U.S. POWs Reunite With Families

FORT BLISS, Texas — To chants of "Hoo-ah!" and tearful hugs from family, seven American soldiers who survived three harrowing weeks of captivity in Iraq made a joyous homecoming — and began a long journey of adjustment and healing.

(Emotional nationalistic propaganda such as this has been springing up everywhere on tv, so I don't think I need to explain what it's about).

Emotional Nationalistic Propaganda Quotes: "About 20 of Williams' family members planned to be together Sunday for an Easter lunch, said Tucker, who wore a red, white and blue button with his nephew's picture and kept a digital camera handy to show off pictures of the pilot's two children."

"I say a special prayer each night for our fallen comrades, for the soldiers that didn't make it home, and the ones that are still over there. I want everyone to remember them in their prayers," Chief Warrant Officer Ronald D. Young Jr. told 1,500 cheering colleagues, friends and family members who had gathered late Saturday night at Fort Hood. (Emotionally Touching. Message: Think of all the troops over their and support them. Go war)

"For many of the rescued soldiers, homecoming meant basking in life's little joys — a daughter's tresses or a home-cooked meal." (Emotionally Touching. Coming home to the "good ol' USA" after being in that nasty Iraq)

"The only thing he's talked about was if his little girl's hair had grown," said Williams' uncle Russell Tucker. "That was the first thing he asked." (This isn't news, but again is just used to make you pity the soldier and other's like him. Go troops.).

[Ninja-Scientist]

These are all the war-related topics. Let's see, that's pro-war: 3, anti-war: 0. Not a single one shows people or incidents that are "anti-war."

In addition, they have multiple families talking about "support my son and the other soldiers. God Bless America!" but never, "My son died in a war! This war is worthless! If you support our troops, don't support this war!" What about all the commercials still going on about 9/11 ("on 9/11, terrorists tried to change America forever....they succeeded." You know the one. I can't believe it's still being showed! I just saw it last week.) But what about commercials that are "anti-war?" There are next to none.

Now, forget about propagands for a moment. Even the facts are biased. Why has no news station talked about us rationing Iraqi water which killed 500,000 (see Iranian Conflict info below for more information)? I'm sure that classifies as news to the Iraqi people, why wasn't it shown here? What about when we gave weapons of mass destruction to both Iraq and Iran and told them to go kill each other? Why wasn't that shown if it relates to this war and if people were really "oh so concerned" about Suddam having weapons? You think they'd be a little interested in where he actually got these weapons from. All they talk about is what "Suddam did." Suddam killed this, Suddam did that, Suddam is evil. We killed more of his people than he did (that includes the water rationing deaths and the lives lost in the Iranian Conflict due to the weapons we supplied to Iran)! Or it's all, "Iraqis teaching children to be anti-American," or "look at the filth they live in, bad bad Suddam for letting his people live like that" (even though we are a partial cause of that).

What about the man who was kicked off Bill Oreally for telling how Bush Sr. supported the terrorists who later became the Taliban (and that episode was never aired)? (Harpers Magazine)

What about a man who was recently kicked out of a mall for wearing a shirt that only said, "No War" on it? They told him it was "too controversial to wear in a public place." He refused to leave and they arrested him. He sued and lost. (Harpers Magazine).

You can't deny that the media has become biased in favor of America and the war. Even if there are a few examples of anti-war media publications, rarely is anything shown that is "damaging to America's reputation (like talking about what America actually did in Iraq before this war)."

For example, they may show an anti-war rally, but so what? How does that convince people that these people have something to say? They rarely ever interview these people to find these people's actual beliefs. They only portray them as being, "anti-war" or complaining that "people are dying in Iraq" or that "this war is for oil" or something. They basically portray them and a voice without reason.

In contrast to the long air time they give the families of returning soldiers, in an anti-war rally, they usually only film a sign that says, "no war" or interview one or two people who say something like, "it's time we stopped this" or something not even related to the war, like, "I'm out here with my family. We've been here all day. etc." Showing an anti-war rally on tv like this is not anti-war propaganda. It only becomes propoganda when it is influenced by those who air it.

For Example...

This: People in Rode Island gathered together for an anti-war rally today. They wave picket signs saying "stop the madness" and proceeded to march down main street. "How long have you been walking?" "We've been walking for a long time, it's wonderful to see everyone here." "We have to stop the deaths of children in Iraq. This can't go on."

Is not the same as...

This: Families gathered together in Rode Island today, to support their loved ones fighting bravely in the struggle in Iraq. Tears where flowing and a candle light vidgle was held for the young lives lost in the war. It was followed by a sermon given by Preacher, Simon. "We want those boys to know that God is with them and that their families are here thinking about them." "*sniffle* *sniffle* This is my son, Randolf. He was only 20. It hurts me so much to know he's gone." Randolf Smith, gave his life to the war effort at just 20. He played sports and loved his country........and on and on and on.

You see now. Which one is a little more pitying? More emotional pity is surrounding those who are pro-war (usually showing families and God), while little emotion or air time is given to those who are against it (if they are even aired at all).

All in all, even if you could name a convincing piece of anti-war media, their numbers are few and easily swallowed up by the number of pro-war propaganda. This is not debatable. If it was, again there would not be a 3-0 amount of pro vs. anti war stories on the first sight I viewed (which is also one of the most popular news stations): http://www.foxnews.com/

[Ninja-Scientist]

At full risk of offending you, let me just say that I HAVE BEEN LAUGHING AT THIS FOR DAYS!

And just as you suggested, I've been sending copies of this to my friends, which they all loved.

Here is his "response" to my points. Thought you might like
them. ^_^ You can really tell by
his following statements that this guy lives his life through the
media. Especially, TV.
Sheesh! You know, even though I don't really like the guy, it's still
kinda sad when you find
someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda so much or can no
longer think for
himself.

"Thank you Ninja. How dare the families of the U.S. POWs be
joyous. Your right we are
totally nationalistic for covering their family’s joy. Would you have
objected if the POWs
were found dead and the news mentioned that? Would it be “a little”
easier for you to
stomach? Deep down, would you actually want them dead? After all they
would have died
defending a country they believe in and they support, unlike you.

"The very same nation you
oppose for unfounded reasons."

(You know, one thing that has always bothered me is that sometimes
when you say that
you disaprove of this particular war or of Bush or something, people
accuse you of "hating
America." Someone should tell these people that Bush, this war,
and America aren't the
same thing. I can hate two and still like the other. lol. Also, just
because you actually admit
that America did some things bad and "isn't perfect"---god
forbid---then I'm anti-American?
Sheesh! I love my country, THAT'S why it offends me so much to hear
what our government
is doing and THAT'S why I want to get the information out to other
people. I actually want to
help America by actually doing something about it's faults. After
all, you help your team
more by playing in the game than by just rooting in the crowds.)

Now, let me dumb this down for you, Mario. It's not what they show on TV that bothers me. They could show hundreds of POWs coming home or hundreds of examples of war propaganda and I wouldn't care. I was saying that what upsets me is what they DON'T show on TV. I was using the "POWs example" as one example of the inequalities in the war drama propaganda shown today. It obviously has nothing to do with POWs at all. Basically, I was saying that I just wanted the media to be more fair and equal in what it showed about the war and those experiencing it (read my other posts to see more examples of inequalities in the freedom of speech allowed during this war time and some examples of the information that is never made public to the media about the war with Iraq do to this). That's all. Sheesh! You need to calm down. The liberals aren't "out to get ya," nor do they want POWs dead or "hate" America. Really, who raised you?

"I don’t know how to respond to your long winded ranting. I have
lost my patience with you
and your drawn out, misinformed, ignorant, speculatory, liberal left
extreme, underhanded,
name calling, childlike, arrogant threads. I am at the point were I
don’t give a fuck about
what you have to say and I will dismiss you as nothing more then yet
another mere
Californian extremist deadbeat that wants the rest of the world to
suck their dick
(figuratively).

(Another? Wow, how many are there? And I laughed at that "rantings" part. At least my "rantings" are researched. lol.)

"You can take this response and show it to all your little weed
smoking friends
and let them give you the reach around for it. I don’t care anymore
to discuss anything with
you. You have proven yourself deaf to my view so I will do the same
to yours."

(I don't understand why he thinks I was, "deaf" to his
views, when I spent 15 pages
responding to them with information I've gathered. Basically, I don't
think he's going to
discuss anything else with me, because he can't. Like I always say,
show me a man who
resorts to name calling, cursing, and denial, and I'll show you a man
who's run out of
anything else good to say ^_^).

"Evident from my statements above, I will no longer give you any
respect on any level. I will
no longer hold me tongue. All your replies have been dripping with
sarcasm, arrogance
and irrelevance."

(You're right Mario, I should have done it how you do it.)

"Congratulations on filling up this thread. Hopefully it will
take up a ton of bandwidth and get
deleted. You have failed to have me consider, even for a millisecond,
your beliefs as valid."

(You'd like that, wouldn't you. ^_^)

"By the way I did check out Harpers. Believe it or not."
_______

So, "weed smoking friends," how do you like it? I'm going
to "let you give me the reach
around for it." Yes, mario, I want all the POWs dead for loving
America because "I hate it so
so much for unfounded reasons." lol! Anyway, in case you were
wondering. He's
responding to a point I made about inequalities in war propaganda,
where all they show
now is "POWS coming home to their loved ones," (which isn't
really news, it's mostly just
FOX's use of emotional, nationalistic propaganda to get ratings) and
other nationalistic
propaganda, but very few things on anti-war. I basically told him
that when they show pro-
war propaganda, they make it very emotional, but when they show
anti-war propaganda
(which is farely rare), they make it very unemotional (like,
"people gathered for an anti-war
rally today, marching down some street with their families, the
end."). I'm sure you know
what I'm talking about. I wonder how he got that I want the POWS dead
and that I hate
America out of that. Hmmm.

[Ninja-Scientist]

So basically, I guess he accuses liberals of being "Californian
extremist deadbeats that
wants the rest of the world to suck their dicks
(figuratively)."---Few! Good thing he put
"figuratively" in there. Otherwise, I might have taken
him seriously. So, this is his counter argument. Good one. All my
facts and opinions
combined can't beat that piece of gold. You're truly a brilliant debator, aren't you?

Then, I called him a "child" for earlier making such harsh
generalizations about those with liberal backgrounds (he was
basically implying that mine
and all liberal information was "half-truths," even though
he of course supplied nothing to
prove it). He also accused me of having my "head stuck up
somewhere or something." After
I called him a "child" and mocked him for acting that way,
he got all offended that "I" was
calling people names and told me that I was putting words in his
mouth. Talk about a
hypocrit! I guess I should have "held me tognue." Here's
his e-mail to me about that:

"Thank you. I have not read it yet. But I have read
your first line. I am Amazed!!! You have not read
anything that I have written."

(Darn. I thought I could get away with guessing it within 15 pages of
responses.)

"I dont know what kind of
mental block you have on reading what I write but it
is rather annoying."

(It could be all your typeo's, insults, and factless information)

(here he cut and pasted what I said to him: )

"You think calling someone a 'child' for assuming that
liberal views and liberal magazines are all
"misinformed" because they aren't "his views" the
same as telling someone that they "have their head stuck
'somewhere.?" Although it may seem unfair and shocking
to you, if you plan on resorting to childish name
calling, such as this, yourself, be prepared to get
some degree of insulting back. If you are going to
critize the beliefs of other, be prepared to play that
way, Joe."

(here's his response: )

"Your posts had large amounts of name calling so you
need to drop this point. I responded with some
restraint to your comments."

(Really? I didn't notice. Must be my "mental block.")

"Again I never said
"liberal views and liberal magazines are all
"misinformed". Your putting words in my mouth to try
and undermind my views. My friend, I DO NOT appreciate
your attempt to under mind my views by inserting YOUR
own words as my own."

(Well, at least he's good at it. I honestly would not have known that
I hate America if he
hadn't told me I did).

(Now, honestly for a moment. In my original posts I never mentioned anything about the political backgrounds of others and yet the first things out of your mouth in response was how I was "liberal and misinformed, "your essay is very liberal and lacks facts," "you got some of your information from a liberal magazine," "Harpers is a very liberal magazine," liberal this, liberal that, liberal this. Now when ALL you talk about in your response is how I'm liberal and wrong that, liberal and wrong this, and liberal and wrong that, then it become fairly obvious that you were implying a connection between the two words seperated by "and" (and repeated several times). So don't bother to play word games with me. In addition, why would you bother mentioning at all that some of my information came from liberal sources if you weren't implying something derogatory by that. You just wanted to say if for fun? Please. Once again, I'm not that stupid. And, just for your information, most of the information listed in the liberal magazines I did use quoted their information from other un-baised sources such as the NewYork Times, Washington posts, federal documents and organizations (such as, say the FDA), and expert witnesses (such as the statements of federal authorites or scientists).

"OK well thats it for now. I will read the read of your
thread replys when I get back."

"Thank you again for this thread."

"Sincerely,
John-David"

Also, I kinda wonder why he calls himself Mario, if his name is
John-David...Just a thought.
Anyway, I just thought that you'd get a kick out of this guy. lol.

And on an ending note: If the only thing someone can say in response to the information you may have gathered on the US-Iraq war relations is "Oh yeah? Well, you hate America and want all POWs to die then!" or

"Well you're wrong and everything you say is wrong!" and then doesn't back that up, or

"Well, I'm not even going to read the rest of your information because it's unflattering to America and therefore I don't NEED to read it to know that it's already wrong, because America is always right," and then proceeds to plug their ears and go "la la la la la la, I can't hear you," then they most likely have nothing else good to say themselves.

Your Friend,
Krisha

I think I can put the Gulf War 2 in a nutshell much better.
Bush wants to attack Iraq.
Hippies protest.
Bush attacks Iraq.
Hippies protest
Iraq gets it's ass kicked.
Hippies protest.
We tip over a bunch of statues and stuff.
Hippies protest.
We withdraw.
Hippies get angry and go back to protesting about the legallity of Marijuana.

[Ninja-Scientist]

I got a better one:

America does dumb stuff sometimes.

Muckrakers dig it up.

Jerks give knee-jerk, fact less criticism or denial because they feel it's "offensive to their country."

Our President does dumb stuff sometimes.

Muckrakers dig it up.

Jerks give knee-jerk, fact less criticism or denial because they feel it's "offensive to their country."

We are forced to fight wars for suspicious reasons.

Muckrakers dig it up.

Jerks give knee-jerk, fact less criticism or denial because they feel it's "offensive to their country."

[Ninja-Scientist]

She said the government is “Turning a war of greed into a war of saving the people.”
This is a grossly wrong statement. We are not taking over the Iraqi oil fields. The Iraqi people are. There is some money to be made in reconstructing Iraq but I hardly think that amount would motivate our government to wage war.
________________________________________________

The Iraqi people are taking over their own oil fields?

The only involvement we have ever had in Iraq had to do with oil, including the Iranian Conflict (see below). And how do you explain it suddenly being different now when this war is related to the Iranian Conflict (again, see Iranian Conflict below)? The US succeeded in weakening both Iran and Iraq through the Iranian Conflict by trading weapons of mass disctruction to both countries so that they could cause greater damage to each other. And now that Iraq is weak, we "suddenly" decide to attack them. They were a greater threat before the Irananian Conflict, but we were giving them weapons then! Now, they're weak, they're no longer a threat and now we decide to attack them.

Also, how do you explain the oil tycoon "puppet" they are hopping to put in Iraq? A man who "just happens" to have promised to greatly open up oil trade in Iraq once he controls it. (Harpers Magazine)

You honestly think that this war is "to help the Iraqi people out of the goodness of our hearts" or to stop Suddam who's country is already grossly weakened do to his war with Iran, which we propelled (again, see Iranian Conflict below), and who does not have the economy, firepower, or support of his own people to attack us anyway?

Oh, and this may be news to some people, but our president will make a lot of money off this war, he owns a oil company himself! And his speeches have rallied tv and our society alike into feeling threatened by this country. Jimmy Carter propelled war with Iran and Iraq just because of oil trade threats (see water rations information above). The US traded weapons of mass distruction to both countries (who are both anti-American) just because of oil trade threats (see Iranian Conflict below). Why is it different now?

America has never waged war on people without their own self-interest (usually financially) at stake. But, that's how all countries have worked in the past! I don't blame a country for not wanting to go through an expensive war unless they get something out of it. Who would? That's almost stupid. But what makes you think that America is special?
______________________________________________

She said the US was intentionally were killing Iraqis when she said.
"SO many children were dying from America's hand while [Saddam] was sitting on his throne drinking his clean imported water (this is all a fact) and was it ever shown on American news? You can say this is bad about [Saddam], but he wasn't the one killing them, we were. And then later we were calling [Saddam] evil for not saving his people from death and disease......from US! How dare he not save his people from us?"
This is an egregious comment. Because of Saddam’s action the UN imposed economic sanctions which hurt Iraq’s economy. Because Saddam covets all the humanitarian aid coming into his country the Iraqi people still starve and die at HIS hand.
__________________________________________________

*sigh* AGAIN, please view what I wrote about the water rations. Firstly, please tell me where in that quote I said "intentionally" kill the Iraqi people. It would also please me if you would put a halt to quoting me out of context, just to support your opinions. It is true that so many children were dying from America's hand (read that information above). We didn't do it to intentionally kill the Iraqi people, we did it as a supposed attack on Suddam, but we let it go on for a long time, knowing full well that the people were dying from it, while Suddam wasn't being hurt. So, because Suddam lets his people starve and die, us letting them die of contaminated water poisoning years earlier wasn't wrong? My point is how can we be all angry and Suddam for killing his people when we've killed over 500,000 children alone through water poisoning and over 5,000 are dying each year still (see water rationing information above). And what about the deaths we caused by supplying Iran with weapons of mass destruction to be purposefully used on Iraq (please see Iranian Conflict information below)? All in all, we caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi people, which I assume is much more than Suddam has done (if he's killed more, then combined with the number we killed, there would be no Iraqi people left). Oh, and did I mention hurting Iraq's economy in the sanctions also caused the starvation of the Iraqi people? You think that affected Suddam who is already grossly wealthy? No, just like the water issue, this also mainly affected the Iraqi people who are not responsible for Suddam's actions. First they tried to control water, that hurt the people and not Suddam, then they tried an economic sanction, that hurt the people and not Suddam. There ya go.

[Ninja-Scientist]

“What about a few years ago when WE traded weapons of mass destruction to Iraq for oil (another fact)? Was that shown on American news? What about a few years after we gave them the weapons, when we suddenly became angry at them for having the some of the exact weapons we traded to them?”

In the 80’s the US did support Saddam during the Iranian Conflict. At the time he was the least of two evils. He did receive weapons like Anthrax from us. Just because we gave them to him doesn’t give him the right to Attack his own people with them. Because of the events from the 80’s we have now changed the way we deal with dictators and another nations so this mistake will not happen again.
____________________________________________________
I agree that he shouldn't have attacked his own people with the Anthrax we gave him. Good thing we sure didn't forsee that giving Anthrax to a dictator such as him would have resulted in that, eh? Or maybe we suspected that but just didn't care as long as we got what we wanted out of it. What do you think is more likely?

"Every once in a while you kind of wonder when you sell something to a certain country," said Robert Finney, president of Electronic Associates, Inc., which supplied Saad 16 with a powerful computer that could be used for missile testing and development. "But it's not up to us to make foreign policy," (The Wall Street Journal).

"The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984."

You don't seem to get into much depth about the Iranian Conflict, either.

"From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran waged a terrible war against each other, a war that might not have begun if President Jimmy Carter had not given the Iraqis a green light to attack Iran, in response to repeated provocations. Throughout much of the war, the United States provided military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other."

I see you also didn't mention why we gave weapons to Iraq in the Iranian Crisis.

Noam Chomsky suggests that this strategy is a way for America to keep control of its oil supply:

"It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price."

Seems logical. Why else would we encourage both countries to go to war with each other and then supply weapons to both countries, so that they would cause great damage to each other? Why do you think we did that? Give me a good reason.

But Anthrax is not the only problem.

"A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program's secrecy."

This (above) he hasn't used on his own people, though the material we gave Iran has.

All in all, don't you think it was wrong of us to supply Suddam with these types of weapons for such "mysterious" reasons? *cough* *cough* Especially knowing how he has treated his own people in the past and knowing full well how dangerous to us he could become to us? You must certainly agree that we made it needlessly worse both for the Iraqi people as well for ourselves.

So, here's the deal. Iran and Iraq were both great threats to us, yet we got oil from both. So Carter "encouraged" them to go to war with each other. We give them both weapons in order to weaken each other, knowinf full well that both dictators could turn on us and their own people. "Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests (and by interests, they mean oil trade)." Then, after we get Suddam to rough up Iran for us and causes his own country to weaken in the war, THEN we decide to wage war on him for having the exact weapons we gave him to fight Iran for our sake. So we give him weapons to fight a country we're having problems with and then after he does it, we say we want the weapons back or we'll bomb you because now you could be a threat to us. While we were giving him weapons, who could have forseen that he may have refused to give them back after the war? But then again, "It's not up to us to make foreign policy,"as Finney said.

If anyone wants more information on this, please try The Progressive site: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
_________________________________________
“Bush Sr. [Supporting] [Taliban].”
I am interested in this angle. I know haters of Bush Sr. trumped up charges of him helping the Taliban because of a possible drug connection.
___________________________

Firstly, I don't hate Bush Sr. That's not the issue. In anycase, it doesn't have to do with drugs but again mostly with oil and our beef with the Turaki Government in Afgahnistan. Firstly, the entire Bush family and the entire Bin Ladin family were a part of the same firm (the Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies) and were financially supporting each other (including Osama before he was disowned by his family) before 9/11. In addition, Bush himself called for a the temporary halting of the FBI investigations surrounding the terrorist attacks because the US was currently trying to make plans with the Taliban for running an oil pipeline through Afghanistan territory to get to Central Asian oil. This pipeline would have been much cheaper than running an oil pipeline through Russia (which was another of their plans). This temporary halting of the investigation may have been the cause for Osama's escape. And finally, while Bush Senior was in charge of the CIA during his reign, he had given millions of dollars and weapons to the later-to-be members of the Taliban to combat the Turaki Government in Afgahnistan for the US at that time.

[Ninja-Scientist]

Here are a few sources of that information.
___________
Bush-Bin Ladem Connection:

"Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens," Hindustan Times
AFP

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/bush_twarted.htm

"Newsnight said Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem Bin Laden, Osama's brother."

"Bush also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little-known private company which in just a few years since its founding has become one of America's biggest defence contractors, and his father, George Bush Sr, is also a paid advisor, the programme said. The connection became embarrassing when it was revealed that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11, it added."
-------
"BUSHLADEN"
by Jared Israel [8 October 2001]
Includes report from the 'Wall Street Journal'

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

"Given that Carlyle's business is "defense," the Bushes and bin Ladens may well profit handsomely from the current war."

Basically, the Carlyle Group covers buyouts of defense and aerospace companies. This would actually cause both the Bush and Bin Ladin familes to gain wealth in the event of a US war. Because of this, the Bin Ladin family pulled out after 9/11 to avoid criticizim for making money off a war that their son partially caused. Even though the Bush family was a partial cause of the incident as well (by earlier funding the terrorists), they didn't pull out of the firm and went to war anyway (which would pad their bank account even more).
____________________

Bush Halting the FBI investigation of 9/11 to finish earlier business with the Taliban:

CNN, AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN, "Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S. Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

"The most explosive charge, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan."

"I believe (the charges) should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with Russia."

"Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply."
___________________

More information on the oil pipeline:

"Osama Bin Ladin joined a Secret Energy Commisson meeting of Senators and Oil execs."
http://www.gwbush.com/archive/index2-5-02.shtml (now, this is a Bush haters site, but they have pictures of the incident and other sources to support their comments).

"Remember: this was BEFORE September 11. This was before the Taliban were the bad guys. In fact, energy companies were inviting over delgations of Taliban leaders to Texas. Why? Becase we've been trying for years to build a pipeline through Afghanistan from the Oilfields of central Asia."

"Damn it, there's a lot of oil up there, see, and right now the Ruskies have got total control over it. A pipeline through Afghanistan would solve the whole problem. But the country's always been too lawless for any energy company to operate there."

"Enter the Taliban: Say what you will about those evil doers, but sure did bring in law and order."

"Well, everyone knew that if anyone could put in a good word for us with the Taliban, it was the old Bush-family friend, Osama Bin Laden. We didn't see any harm inviting him over for a chat. We had no idea he was plotting to bomb America then of course."
--------
Judicial Watch: Bush/bin Laden Connection "has now turned into a scandal!"
Comment by Jared Israel

Can also be found at: http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

"Osama bin Laden has been harbored by the Taliban. The Taliban have been financed ('harbored') by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; and, in fact, the U.S. has contributed a few million from time to time. So now the U.S. (the Taliban's uncle) is going to go to war in alliance with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (the Taliban's mama and papa) following which the victorious allies will install in power in Afghanistan: the Taliban."

"Doesn't this suggest that the real goal of the 'infinite war' is not to crush Islamist terrorists, e.g., the Taliban? That the real goal is for the US and Britain to create a strategic presence in and around the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia?"
____________________
Now, back to the issue of Bush halting FBI investigations. (same CNN review as above).

"But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this FBI agent, told the authors of this book.":

"Instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book alleges."
-----

[Ninja-Scientist]

Now, here is where Bush Sr. himself gets involved.

"We Decide, You Shut Up," an interview made on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, printed out in Harpers. This information was given by a man whose father died in 9/11. He spent much of his time after the incident trying to find out why it happened. Here is what he found:

"Our current president inherited a political legacy from his father that's responsible for training militarily, and economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the murder of my father and countless thousands of others."

"Six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter Administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahedeen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."

This is from a discussion made by Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on September, 11. He was conversing to Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor (a Fox News program). Bill O'Reilly had nothing to say to say to contradict him, so angry with humiliation, he "cut his mike" and did not air the show. Glick reported that after the interviw, in his humiliation O'Reilly said to him, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to F@#$ pieces."

So basically we did the same thing in Afghanistan as we did in the Iranian Conflict (see above). We supplied one group with weapons and funding in order to attack another group we didn't like for us. By supporting these radical, anti-American mujahedeen (who where later used by the Taliban to attack the US) with weapons and funding (which was later used by the Taliban to attack the US) in order to combat the the Turaki government in Afghanistan, we propelled the events of 9/11 ourselves.

So, all in all, the Bush and the Bin Laden family knew each other (and were benefiting one another) in the Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies (which would cause the both to gain wealth during war times). The Bin Laden family pulled out but the Bush family stayed in and then went to war. After 9/11, Bush put a temporary halt on the FBI investigation surrounding the incident to finish up buisness with the Taliban over an oil pipeline through Afgahnistan to reach Central Asian oil, which was controled by the Russians, because it would be cheaper than convincing the Russians to allow one through their own territory. Finally, when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA, he financially supported the terrorists of the Taliban and supplied them with weapons in order to tackle the Turaki government in Afghanistan for the US. That is how US-Afgahnistan and Bush-Bin Laden relations went befor the war.
____________________
“I'd like you to watch the TV and tell me the next time you see an
Anti-War commercial or a commercial that isn't full with heavy Nationalistic propaganda.”
Try MTV they are full of them. They are full of Liberal Propaganda.
______________________________________

Excuse me while I laugh histarically. Here is the site: http://www.mtv.com/ Check out the American Flag banner. It makes me wonder what you consider to be "liberal" propaganda. In addition, how many people do you think turn to MTV (a music channel directed towards the tastes of teenage kids) for their source of reliable news information? Even if there was an anti-war commercial shown on MTV at one point, how many people do you think it reached? Point is, you only named one station which most people wouldn't turn to for reliable information anyway (regardless whether or not that information is in fact reliable). And you can't deny that in the face of other media, nationalistic propaganda outnumbers anything anti-war by a long shot.

And finally, someone can be against this war and not be "liberal." Please, knock off the stereotypes. I never judged all Republicans to be like you or assumed that all Republicans have your beliefs. Bush, America, and this war are three seperate things. It may surprise you, but you can like one without having to like the others and vise-versa.

For more information on war propaganda. Try here: http://www.fair.org/international/iraq.html
___________________________________
She said the US does not attacking other countries because they don’t have oil.
The UN resolutions toward Iraq were violated and it was time for action. Not because they had oil.
_____________________________

Strange that we didn't "take action" against ourselves when WE violated UN resolutions by giving Iraq weapons of mass destruction and the technology to build them so they could go weaken Iran for us in the Iranian Conflict, which was for oil, might I add.

In addition, you swayed from my main point. In fact, you actually increased it.

If we "took action" against Iraq for "violating UN resolutions and having weapons" (many of which we gave them and which we gave them the technology to build not much earlier) because that would make them a "danger" to us. Then why didn't we "take action" against Korea who abandoned the Korean War Armistice and is starting up their atomic reactor for nuclear arms, who is more of a threat, more able to have a war with us, has more weapons than Iraq, who is closer to having a war with us, who is almost more anti-American than Iraq, and who is suspected of having plans for attacking America in the near future.

Basically, my question was why did we get on Iraq's violations, when Korea has done just as much, if not more, violations and mostly is more of a threat to the US than Iraq.

I can't help but notice you never answered why that is.

[Ninja-Scientist]

"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat" : http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

"The United States says it is ready for any contingency after North Korea issued threats of pre-emptive attack and suggested it was poised to restart an atomic reactor central to its suspected drive for nuclear arms."

"Reckless and arrogant moves of the U.S. imperialists to stifle the DPRK (North Korea) prompt the KPA... to wage a life-and-death battle with the U.S.," said the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) about anti-U.S. rallies by the army."
-----
"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

"Tensions on the peninsula have risen dramatically since North Korea revived its nuclear programme late last year and then last month announced it was pulling out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)."

"The US will not respond to threats, broken commitments or blackmail by North Korea," he said." (and we'll go to war with Iraq over the exact same things? I wonder why that is.)
----
Of course, Bush is partially behind this as well (see below).

Arms Control Today

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

In deciding not to continue the Clinton administration's efforts to curb the North Korean ballistic missile program, President George W. Bush has gratuitously rejected a promising opportunity to improve U.S. security. In fact, the decision is so irrationally contrary to U.S. security interests that it is widely perceived internationally as intended to preserve, and even enhance, the North Korean ballistic missile threat so that it can serve as the rationale for early deployment of a national missile defense (NMD). This devastating assessment of U.S. motivation will only be refuted if the Bush administration's promised review of its North Korea policy leads to a prompt resumption of the deferred negotiations to stop Pyongyang's development and export of ballistic missiles.

Of course that was 2 years ago and Bush hasn't done anything since. And of course, Korea, is become more and more of a threat in the last 2 years and is continuing to get worse.
_____________________________

“Of course once we take oil from Iraq and… "
We are not taking oil from Iraq. We get our oil from countries like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
_____________________________________

*sigh* Once again, I didn't say we are getting oil from Iraq now, I said, "once we take oil from Iraq." I am indeed aware that we get very little oil from Iraq as of now, if any at all (they're obviously not going to trade with us in the middle of a war. But we originally were one of Iraq's best customers. We originally bought about 90% of Iraqi oil in 2001. And these numbers continued until war time. If you want to know why we still want war with Iraq, then go down to where you listed the Ahmed Chalabi information (info about it is listed towards the end, it basically has to do with the advantage we'd recieve over Russia and all the other countries who are a part of the heavy oil trade).

NOTE: I even bothered to write the person in charge of Marketing information at Middle East Economic Survey (MEES), MIDDLE EAST PETROLEUM AND ECONOMIC PUBLICATIONS (CYPRUS) and asked her about US and Iraqi oil trades up until the war. Here is what she wrote me back:

"THE US CONTINUED TO PURCHASE IRAQI OIL UNDER THE TERMS OF THE UN
OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM UP TO THE START OF THE WAR. IRAQ NEVER HALTED
EXPORTS SPECIFICALLY TO THE US -- ALTHOUGH IT DID HALT EXPORTS IN
GENERAL FROM TIME TO TIME"

Note that MEES is the company that also did the report on the US's Iraqi oil consumption in 2001 (which wound up being 90% of Iraq's oil at the time).

-----
Here's some more information I've found on this topic.

October 4, 2002
Bush Donors: Saddam's Best Customers
A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary
by Margie Burns

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/04_Oil.html

"At the beginning of April 2001, the Middle East Economic Survey, an industry research periodical, reported that ninety percent of Iraq's oil sales in January and February had gone to US companies. Following that lead, international oil companies jumped into the market, and MEES reported that Iraq's March oil sales would surpass previous levels."

"The next week, MEES reported that "the main market for Iraqi crude is now the US."

"Indeed, US companies were Iraq's biggest customers throughout 2001, a fact not emphasized publicly by this administration. According to the Department of Energy, America imported about 290 million barrels of crude oil from Iraq in 2001 -- abut 795,000 barrels per day, making Iraq our sixth-largest supplier."

"Forbes Magazine -- not to be confused with Sierra Club publications -- estimated this summer that American companies purchased almost 70% of Iraqi oil in 2001, naming ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, BP, and Marathon Oil."

"This is not to imply that the imports stopped, or even slowed down, at the beginning of 2002. According to the American Petroleum Institute, US companies imported an average 611,000 barrels per day from Iraq from January through June of this year, making Iraq America's fifth-largest supplier of oil in the first half of 2002."

"As recently as this summer, the Middle East Economic Survey estimated that "as much as 90 percent of the actual amount of Iraq's estimated 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) are going to U.S. Gulf coast refineries" (cited by ABC News.com, July 20, 2002)."

(Then Suddam cut the US off in May of 2002)

[Ninja-Scientist]

"The Bush White House, Republicans in the House of Representatives, and the oil companies have opposed ANY effort to curtail US purchases of Iraqi oil. Iraq holds the world's second-largest oil reserves, and Iraqi oil has less sulfur than other oil, reducing the cost of environmental compliance for refineries. When Saddam cut off supplies to American companies last May, US companies and the White House tried to get around the embargo -- less by finding other sources for oil, or developing alternative energy, than by buying Iraqi oil through Russia and other middlemen.

The restriction on oil mentioned was only for 30 days (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1916755.stm for that information) and was made because of the Isrealy Conflict. Afterwards, oil continued to be exported to the US in massive quantities.

Russia has also become one of the biggest customers of Iraqi oil. They actually pay for the oil, however, which goes against the UN's "oil for food" deal that was instricted on Iraq. However, the US didn't complain about this, since they too were getting oil from Iraq indirectly through Russia. However, it would be cheaper if we just controlled Iraq ourselves instead of buying it through the middle men or by getting it through the "oil for food" deal in Iraq itself (hence the war). This would cause Russia to lose their advantange over us in the oil trade, and they don't want that to happen. In fact, they tried to sneak in a few more oil contracts with Iraq right before the war (see http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7072-14.cfm for more information on this).

They had the advantage in Central Asian oil as well, which is why deals were earlier attempted to be made with the Taliban by the US (even after 9/11) to put a pipeline from Central Asia through Afgahnistan territory, causing Russia to lose their advantage over the oil trade in Central Asia (see Bush-Bin Ladin connection information above). However, this was never done.

____________________________________
WTF, why are you rambling about oil competition?
__________________________________

I was responding to another review by a different NG member who didn't understand US oil competition.
______________________________
She said we attack civilians. “…which would cause the DEATHS of hundreds of Iraqi children. So many Iraqi children's hospitals are being hit so hard by the war with America right now and Iraq doesn't have good medical facilities to begin with. And now the kids (and other [innocent] people) are dropping like flies. Why isn't this being broadcasted either? And you can say that after we take over Iraq, we can change all this, but who ever thinks this knows nothing about American history.”
It is broadcast and you need to check your history. I will address the civilian casualties’ argument in the following essay.
_____________________________

*sigh* Once AGAIN, may I ask you to please stop quoting me out of context just to support your beliefs.

No, I didn't say we directly attacked civilians. I said that the war on Iraq "would cause the DEATHS of hundreds of Iraqi children" due to economic reasons. Iraq is already struggling with a pitiously bad economy. This causes the living benefits of those in Iraq to suffer, and Healthcare is one of these benefits.

Iraq hospitals were already struggling to help the impovered people of Iraq before the war due to the poor economy. Now, much of Iraqi's money is being rushed into this war and much of the medical expences are being pushed towards the Iraqi troops and less towards the hospitals of average citizens. The reason I mentioned children in particular (aside from the Michael Jackson issue---read my first posts to figure that out), is because Iraqi children are in desperate need of medical attention due to illnesses caused by the clean water rations imposed on the Iraqi people earlier (read water rations information above). Roughly 5,000 Iraqi children die of these illnesses each year still. Now that the hospitals' funding and medical care is being stretched more because of the war, this number is starting to increase.

So, when I said that "So many Iraqi children's hospitals are being hit so hard by the war with America right now and Iraq doesn't have good medical facilities to begin with." That's what I was talking about.

Also, I actually did see the childrens hospital issue (even about the exact diseases in the children which was caused by contaminated water---although they neglected to mention that we were the cause of it) being broadcasted on TV like you said. The only problem was that then the media said that "we will fix this once we control Iraq, because Saddam won't do it, he's so bad, etc." That's why I started mentioning similar promises we've made in "American history" and didn't keep.

All in all, don't you think we've done enough damage to the Iraqi people to be going in there and making it even worse now?

[Ninja-Scientist]

She said we are putting puppets into replacement governments yet she could not name the man. Currently there are several candidates to become the new leader of Iraq. The U.S. is backing long-time Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who heads the Iraqi National Congress, an alliance of anti-Saddam Hussein groups. There is still debate over who will lead and nothing is written in stone yet.
_____________________________

I could name the man, but I didn't (I didn't find it important to my Vietnam-Iraqi war relations point). I actually know quite a bit about Ahmed Chalabi, so don't judge me so quickly (see, I even spelled his name right).

The only other people aside from Ahmad that they have lined up currently to be their possible "puppets" in Iraq, are the mullahs, monarchists, and Kurdish militants. All are fairly extremest groups, so Ahmad will most likely be the main choice.

Quote from Ahmed Chalabi from The Washington Post about his vision for post-war Iraq: "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil!"
(He must really care about the Iraqis a lot if that's how he feels about the take over of Iraq).
----
"Our Man In Baghdad," by Jon Spade, Harpers Magazine, March 2003.

"Although the Bush administraton has not officially declared itself for any one of the fractious anti-Saddam groups, many influential hawks are rooting for the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and it's leader, a University of Chicago--trained mathematician and banker---and accused embessler---named Ahmed Chalabi."

"He's a debonair moneyman and Washington insider who has cultivated close ties with neocons like Donald Rumsfed aide Richard Perle and deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and with conservative groups like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy."

"Exiled with his family after a 1958 coup, he was invited to Jordan in 1977 to establish the Petra Bank. In 1989 the Jordanian government seized Petra and Chalabi fled the country; a Jordanian court later accused him of embezzlement and fraud. Iraqi National Congress spokespeople insist that Chalabi's ouster was political: He was using the bank to transfer funds to Iraqi opposition groups and amassing information on secret Jordanian-Iraqi trade."

"Soon after his ouster, Chalabi began seeking out CIA support. He set up the INC in 1992 as an umbrella group for several anti-Saddam factions. But disputes over his handling of U. S. money have dogged him, making him persona non grata at the spy agency and the Department of State."

"Former U. S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins flatly calls him a "swindler."

"Despite concerns of this magnitude, Dreyfuss suggests, Chalabi's appeal to the Bush insiders can be summed up in a comment he made to The Washington Post..."American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."

"And the fact that he has so little support in Iraq that he would need American backing to rule the country may actually serve Washington; proping him up would require U.S. troops to occupy the oil fields for years."

"Controlling that much oil," writes Dreyfuss, "would give the United States enormous leverage over Europe and Japan, which depend heavily on Gulf oil; over Russia, whose economy is hinged to the price of its oil exports, which could be manipulated by an American-run Iraq; and over Saudia Arabia."

(I also mentioned the Russia-Iraqi oil trade information and why America wants to control it earlier).

For those of you who aren't biased. For more information, try the Harpers website: http://www.harpers.org/

__________________________
She accused some of calling others like her “Anti-American” when she disagrees.
I would say it’s our duty to question our government and to keep our leaders accountable to their actions. I cannot excuse your lack of facts and the pure about of bias spin you put on your thread.
______________________________

So, you say it's important to question our government and keep our leaders accountable for their actions....as long as it doesn't make America look bad?

If you chose to comment that someone has a "lack of facts," then you better be prepared to have your own. In which case, you don't. I have listed the majority of sources where one can find some information on my issues. You haven't. You seem to enjoy rambling on about issues without mentioning where you get your "true" information from. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. And once again, I see I have to keep reminding you, just because someone comes from a different party than you doesn't mean that all facts that just happen to support the beliefs of those parties are all lies. If you truly believe that, then you are a very close-minded, ignorant individual. Explain to me how how me being upset in a "liberal way" about what America did to Iraq in the Iranian Conflict, for example, means that what we did is any less true? The fact stands on it's own, it doesn't become untrue if I say I'm upset about it.

It seems to me that your outlook on American-World issues is the same as your political views. You seem to believe that everything America does is "good, perfect, and helpful," and everything "outsiders" or other countries do are "bad, imperfect, and damaging" if those countries dislike America or do something that affects America in a negative way. A person truly educated about world issues would not automatically assume that "everything bad America is said to have done is a lie. And he would definetly not try to flat out deny every single point made by someone if it is not "flattering" to America's image.

In fact, I would like to ask you if you truly believe that America is "perfect and richeous" and makes all it's decisions in this way (which is what you seemed to imply in your "it's all lies, knee-jerk response"). If not, tell me some ways you think America is imperfect.

Since you could not argue against some of my issues, you just automatically called them "half truths" or "misinformation" in a "knee-jerk" reaction, which weakens the points on your case, because you cannot prove this nor did you even bother to make an attempt to. In my opinion, saying that "everything you say is a lie or untrue" is just the words of a man who has run out of any good points to counter the argument.

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

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/27/03 08:09 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

please, just make it stop, oh Freakapotimous, just make it stop!!!!! I normally refrain from being personal in bbs, but ninja_scientist, I hate you, I hate your posts, I hate your family, I hate your dog, I hate all of your friends. I even hate the people who work at the grocery store that sells you food. PLEASE DO NOT EXCEED THE POST LIMIT. THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON FOR IT. if you want to make a point, make it, BUT MAKE YOUR POINT AND MOVE THE HELL ON.